4.8 Article

High-throughput and high-efficiency sample preparation for single-cell proteomics using a nested nanowell chip

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-26514-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Laboratory Directed Research and Development award from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
  2. NIH [U01 HL122703, P41 GM103493]
  3. EMSL a DOE Office of Science User Facility - Office of Biological and Environmental Research [DE-AC05-76RL01830]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a nested nanoPOTS (N2) chip to improve protein recovery, operation robustness, and processing throughput for isobaric-labeling-based single-cell proteomics workflow. The N2 chip enables robust quantification of approximately 1500 proteins and reveals membrane protein markers, demonstrating high stability of single-cell proteome profiles for cells cultured under identical conditions.
Global quantification of protein abundances in single cells could provide direct information on cellular phenotypes and complement transcriptomics measurements. However, single-cell proteomics is still immature and confronts many technical challenges. Herein we describe a nested nanoPOTS (N2) chip to improve protein recovery, operation robustness, and processing throughput for isobaric-labeling-based scProteomics workflow. The N2 chip reduces reaction volume to <30 nL and increases capacity to >240 single cells on a single microchip. The tandem mass tag (TMT) pooling step is simplified by adding a microliter droplet on the nested nanowells to combine labeled single-cell samples. In the analysis of similar to 100 individual cells from three different cell lines, we demonstrate that the N2 chip-based scProteomics platform can robustly quantify similar to 1500 proteins and reveal membrane protein markers. Our analyses also reveal low protein abundance variations, suggesting the single-cell proteome profiles are highly stable for the cells cultured under identical conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据