How much do sample specific libraries help in DIA low input/single cell proteomics?

 

At first this new study is a bit of a head scratcher, but once you get past the unnecessary nomenclature, it's worth the time to read. 

Ignore the DIA-ME thing altogether. I should remove it from the title. Wait - I have a car analogy - just about every review of the Ford Mustang Mach-E is something like "this is a really nice EV, we were just confused about the whole Mustang thing." 

DIA-ME is just a name for how literally everyone processes single cell DIA data. We know library free isn't as good as library. And we know that it really doesn't make sense to look for transcription factors in global single cell data. Not even the marketing releases at ASMS have claimed to get to proteins at 10 copies/cell and - oh boy - there are some slide decks from ASMS 2022 that no one has published yet...and not just because I'm reviewing every other SCP paper and limping around punching things while typing anonymous snarky things (I'd rather write snarky things where everyone knows who I am and why). So you run 100 or 200 of your cells on your super sensitive new instrument and you make a library out of that data. Maybe you do that 10 times. Then you analyze your single cells against that library. Works great. Walkthrough here for 2 popular programs. 

However - we're all largely doing that because you've got to get 1,000 proteins/cell to get your paper published in a Nature family journal. How much does using these sample specific libraries effect our results and the biological findings? 

That's the gold in the method of this paper. These authors painstakingly disect it with spike ins and different library loads and it's all very telling. They use 5 cell and 20 cell and 100 cell libraries and on and on. 

If you're interested you can read it. I'm adding it to my reference folder for later. 

THEN - the paper gets cool. Forget the mass spec stuff - this group takes some U-2 OS cells which are one of the best studied cell lines for understanding circadian rhythm (smart! stealing this idea for some targeted stuff coming up) and they hit the cells with Interferon gamma. I don't know how to make the funny greek letter thing. 

And - no real surprise to anyone who has seen a control/dose response thing in single cells - they identify 2 very different populations of cells. In fact, the two populations appear to be almost entirely opposite in their response! There isn't as much on this as you might hope from the biology side, but it's still cool. Would we want every single one of our cells to go into a pro-inflammatory response? Probaby not! Most adult humans I know are doing everything they possibly can to reduce inflammation whenever possible because that stuff is gross and toxic. 

It drives home how important it is for eukaryotic cells that not every cell is going into a full out inflammation cascade when messed up cells derived from a cancer patient and grown in plastic since 1964(!!!) are exhibiting a bimodal response. I was snarky at the beginning of this post, but I think it's both an important and very interesting study, as well as both visually pretty and well organized.