Review v4 · round 1 · manuscript v4

Patch-Clamp Single-Cell Proteomics in Acute Brain Slices: A Framework for Recording, Retrieval, and Interpretation

Rodriguez, L., Diedrich, J., Sun, L., Tsu, B., Kairs, S., Vlkolinsky, R., Barnes, C. A., Martins, A. M. A., Roberto, M., Yates, J. R.

Major revisionadvisory · no human graded this paper
DOI
10.1101/2025.09.15.675920
Reviewed
2026-09-01

Panel readout

5 specialists · scored 1–5

72/ 100

Legacy scaled score

Range 3.0–4.0, a spread of 1.0.

  1. ethics4.0Confidence 5 of 5
  2. reporting reproducibility4.0Confidence 4 of 5
  3. contribution context4.0Confidence 4 of 5
  4. data analysis3.0Confidence 4 of 5
  5. scientific validity3.0Confidence 4 of 5

Score is the referee's assessment of the work.Confidence is how sure that referee was of its own reading, recorded separately and never combined. The editor's verdict is its own judgment of the reports, not a threshold applied to this mean. The legacy aggregate is the historical panel mean multiplied by 20. It is not comparable to the Editor-in-Chief's publication readiness score.

Abstract

as posted by the authors

Single-cell proteomics (SCP) is a powerful method for interrogating the molecular composition of neurons, yet its application to acute brain slices has remained limited. Patch-clamp electrophysiology provides direct information on neuronal excitability, synaptic inputs, and ion channel function, making it a natural partner for SCP. However, combining these techniques introduces unique challenges. For instance, after patch-clamping a neuron, its soma must be physically retrieved, and variability during extraction from the brain slice may influence how well proteomic measurements reflect in situ physiology. Here, we introduce a framework for contextualizing patch-SCP outcomes, with an emphasis on retrieval quality (material yield and soma-enriched synaptic content). We used an indiscriminate shotgun strategy in which all patched neurons were collected regardless of electrophysiological outcome to assess soma retrieval in an exploratory dataset of rat medial prefrontal cortex pyramidal neurons. Capacitance during gigaseal-preserved retrieval correlated with protein identifications, suggesting that proteome yield could be linked to soma size. Preservation of neuronal spiking during relocation tended to be associated with broader synaptic enrichment and recovery of transmembrane proteins. By comparison, torn or aspirated neurons produced small proteomes with poor synaptic representation and neurons with little to no characterization displayed more variable outcomes. These results demonstrate that patch-SCP can be used to assess soma retrieval and they provide a framework for interpreting how electrophysiological context and soma retrieval quality shape single-neuron proteomic measurements in semi-intact circuits.

The review

Specialist reports

Editorial audits

Factual checklists, not opinions. They skip the debate and go straight to the editor.

The text the panel read

counted, not judged

Counted at ingest, no model involved. These describe theconverted text the referees read, not your PDF.

Size

Words
8,633
Main text
7,969

excluding references

Sentences
431
Display equations
0

Sentences

Median sentence
21 words
Longest tenth
40 words
Over 40 words
9%
Passive
~0.3248/sentence

regex approximation

Evidence on the page

Citations
30

3.48 per 1000 words, numeric style

Numbers
54.33

per 1000 words

p-values
0 exact, 4 threshold

Hedging against amplifying

Per 1000 words. Softening ("may", "suggests") against strengthening ("clearly", "demonstrates"). No referee saw these.

Hedging8.46
Amplifying1.74

Provenance

PeerReviewAgents 0.5.0 · 1cf57690

Reviewed file

v4 · 7047 KiB

sha256 1cdeac12f742e3511d54f77c…

Debate rounds

2

Run cost

$1.50

Manuscript read as

markdown

Converted by rustypaper 0.2.0. Quotations match the manuscript text.

Desk screen

triage gate

Which model wrote which report
StageModel
Editorial audits (×2)claude-haiku-4-5
Advocate / skepticclaude-sonnet-5
Specialist reviewers (×5) + desk screenclaude-haiku-4-5
Editor, debate synthesizerclaude-opus-5
debate synthesizer (override)claude-sonnet-5
journal recommender (override)claude-haiku-4-5

The widest fan-out runs on the cheapest model. Only the agents that decide the verdict run on the most capable one.

What the referees looked up (19 searches)
AgentSearchAnswered byHits
audit citation integrityfind related workpatch-seq single-cell transcriptomics electrophysiologyN/A0
find related workpatch-clamp proteomics mass spectrometry single neuronN/A0
search biomedical literaturelocus coeruleus sex differences proteomics patch-clampN/A1
search biomedical literatureAlzheimer's disease iPSC neurons patch-clamp proteomics hyperexcitableN/A0
reviewer contribution contextfind related workpatch-clamp single-cell proteomics acute brain slicesN/A10
find related workPatch-seq electrophysiology transcriptomics single neuronN/A10
search preprintspatch-clamp proteomics soma retrieval brain tissueN/A10
find related worksingle-cell proteomics mass spectrometry neurons ion channelsN/A10
find related workpatch-clamp proteomics locus coeruleus Lee 2024N/A5
find related workAlzheimer's disease iPSC patch-clamp proteomics Ghatak 2024N/A5
find related workpatch-clamp capillary electrophoresis mass spectrometry Choi Nemes 2022N/A5
find related worksoma retrieval gigaseal preservation electrophysiologyN/A5
find related workdata-independent acquisition DIA mass spectrometry single cellN/A5
find related workSynGO synaptic gene ontology enrichment analysisN/A5
search preprintspatch-clamp recording retrieval quality proteome yieldN/A5
search biomedical literaturepatch-clamp proteomics single neuron acute brain sliceN/A4
search biomedical literaturePatch-seq transcriptomics electrophysiology CadwellN/A0
search biomedical literaturesingle-cell proteomics mass spectrometry ion channels GPCRsN/A0
search biomedical literaturesoma retrieval mechanical disruption proteome recoveryN/A0

Run against arXiv, Semantic Scholar, PubMed and bioRxiv while the review was being written. A search returning zero hits is kept: it is the evidence behind a referee saying it found no prior art.

What each agent cost
AgentUSD
editor$0.5128
skeptic$0.2906
advocate$0.2735
reviewer contribution context$0.1231
debate synthesizer$0.0960
audit citation integrity$0.0606
audit methods completeness$0.0433
desk screen$0.0411
reviewer data analysis$0.0166
journal recommender$0.0147
reviewer scientific validity$0.0144
reviewer reporting reproducibility$0.0123
reviewer ethics$0.0057

Cite this review

Permanent: this review only

This URL is a permanent link to this specific review, and will not change.

Plain text
In Silico (2026). Review of "Patch-Clamp Single-Cell Proteomics in Acute Brain Slices: A Framework for Recording, Retrieval, and Interpretation". In Silico. https://pgarrett-scripps.github.io/insilico/reviews/2026/patch-clamp-single-cell-proteomics-in-acute-brain-10-1101-2025-09-15-675920/v4/
BibTeX
@misc{insilico-patch-clamp-single-cell-proteomics-in-acute-brain-10-1101-2025-09-15-675920-v4,
  title        = {Review of {Patch-Clamp Single-Cell Proteomics in Acute Brain Slices: A Framework for Recording, Retrieval, and Interpretation}},
  author       = {{In Silico}},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {In Silico, an AI-refereed overlay journal},
  url          = {https://pgarrett-scripps.github.io/insilico/reviews/2026/patch-clamp-single-cell-proteomics-in-acute-brain-10-1101-2025-09-15-675920/v4/},
  note         = {Machine-generated peer review of doi:10.1101/2025.09.15.675920 v4. Produced by PeerReviewAgents 0.5.0. Produced by PeerReviewAgents, doi:10.5281/zenodo.21781895.}
}

Please cite the preprint itself as well. This reviews that work, it does not replace it. The review is machine-generated and advisory. If you are citing it as evidence about the paper, say so explicitly.