Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background & Aims: Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA) has empowered many insights into gastrointestinal microenvironments. However, profiling human biopsies using droplet-based scRNA (D-scRNA) is challenging since it requires immediate processing to minimize epithelial cell damage. In contrast, picowell-based (P-scRNA) platforms permit short-term frozen storage before sequencing. We compared P- and D-scRNA platforms on cells derived from human colon biopsies.
Methods: Endoscopic rectosigmoid mucosal biopsies were obtained from two adults and conducted D-scRNA (10X Chromium) and P-scRNA (Honeycomb HIVE) in parallel using an individual's pool of single cells (> 10,000 cells/participant). Three experiments were performed to evaluate 1) P-scRNA with cells under specific storage conditions (immediately processed [fresh], vs. frozen at -20C vs. -80C [2 weeks]); 2) fresh P-scRNA versus fresh D-scRNA; and 3) P-scRNA stored at -80C with fresh D-scRNA.
Results: Significant recovery of loaded cells was achieved for fresh (80.9%) and -80C (48.5%) P-scRNA and D-scRNA (76.6%), but not -20C P-scRNA (3.7%). However, D-scRNA captures more typeable cells among recovered cells (71.5% vs. 15.8% Fresh and 18.4% -80C P-scRNA), and these cells exhibit higher gene coverage at the expense of higher mitochondrial read fractions across most cell types. Cells profiled using D-scRNA demonstrated more consistent gene expression profiles among the same cell type than those profiled using P-scRNA. Significant intra-cell-type differences were observed in profiled gene classes across platforms.
Conclusions: Our results highlight non-overlapping advantages of P-scRNA and D-scRNA and underscore the need for innovation to enable high-fidelity capture of colonic epithelial cells. The platform-specific variation highlights the challenges of maintaining rigor and reproducibility across studies that use different platforms.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11230261 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.24.600526 | DOI Listing |