Back

Balancing spatial resolution and proteome depth in LC-MS based spatialproteomics

Meijer, M.; Hong, J.; Pohl, T.; Koudelka, T.; Bassot, C.; Hoernberg, H.; Lee, S.; Rho, H. S.; Lee, A. C.; Pelechano, V.; Piazza, I.

2026-08-28 biochemistry
10.64898/2026.08.27.747491 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Spatial proteomics aims to resolve protein composition within intact tissues, yet extraction-based liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) workflows face an inherent trade-off: smaller sampling units increase spatial specificity, whereas larger sampling units provide greater proteome depth and robustness. As analytical sensitivity improves, sampling-unit size therefore becomes a key experimental design parameter. Current extraction-based LC-MS workflows typically rely on laser capture microdissection (LCM), where sample recovery and scalability can become limiting at low input. Spatially resolved laser-activated cell sorting (SLACS) offers an alternative tissue-isolation strategy based on single-pulse near-infrared laser activation. Here, we use SLACS to systematically examine the resolution-sensitivity trade-off across sampling units ranging from single-cell-equivalent to larger low-input tissue regions. Few-cell sampling retained substantial proteomic information relative to larger regions while increasing spatial specificity. Applied to the mouse somatosensory cortex, SLACS generated deep, layer-resolved proteomic profiles from regions corresponding to approximately 60 cells and preserved major layer-specific molecular patterns at inputs as low as approximately 6 cells. These results highlight sampling-unit size as an important experimental design parameter in extraction-based spatial proteomics and support few-cell sampling as a practical compromise between spatial specificity, proteome depth and robustness.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.