Probe sonication gives you depth one tube at a time — PIXUL delivers the same LC-MS proteomics depth across a full 96-well plate in a single run.
Read or download to see:
Brochure How a shared proteomics core facility preps its whole sample range, tough samples included, in one walk-away run instead of one sample at a time. This two-page reference covers the three-step acoustic workflow, the all-in-one advantage over probe and focused-ultrasonication sample prep, and a head-to-head showing equivalent peptide and protein recovery against a probe sonicator at 96-sample scale.
Guide A practical decision guide for choosing the cell-disruption and protein-extraction instrument at the front of a proteomics core facility's workflow. Walks the six criteria that matter (versatility, reliability and self-sufficiency, hard-sample confidence, throughput without babysitting, consistency, and easy-to-obtain standard plates) and includes a scoring worksheet to evaluate any candidate.
Guide A methods guide for core-facility and translational proteomics scientists: how plate-based acoustic lysis disrupts cells and extracts protein across a full 96-well plate in one run, so the prep step stops deciding how many samples you can study. Covers lysis, protein extraction, and getting clean lysate into your LC-MS workflow.
Blog The samples that worry operators — yeast, bacteria, tough tissue — aren't a different-instrument problem. With PIXUL, they're mostly a question of how much disruption energy and time the wall in front of you needs. Worked protocols for bacteria (minutes, with an enzymatic assist for screening by gel — not deep LC-MS proteomics), yeast (30–60 minutes in SDS-based buffer, no beads), and tough tissue (in between, sometimes with a pre-step), with an honest concession that for a genuinely extreme matrix a dedicated mechanical method may still be the right tool.
Blog Bringing up a new sample-prep instrument usually means weeks of method development. With PIXUL — a 96-well sonicator — the honest answer is closer to: transfer the protocol, then choose a run time. A new user inherits a settled method instead of building one, tunes a single variable (disruption time) to their sample, and the protocol transfers cleanly across people and institutions — with the install handled over a call.
Blog Most of a proteomics pipeline is already standardized — reduction and alkylation, digestion, peptide clean-up, the LC gradient, the mass spec and its search. The step that's least settled, and most manual, sits right at the front: getting clean, solubilized protein out of whatever sample came in. PIXUL drops into that slot, disrupting cells and solubilizing protein from up to 96 wells of a standard plate in one hands-off run — so the disruption step changes while the rest of the pipeline (clean-up, digestion, peptide loading, LC-MS/MS) stays the workflow you already run.
Blog Mechanical disruption is the specialist's tool for the toughest matrices — bead beating earns its place on spores, fungi, fibrous plant and tissue. The question for a shared core is whether you're optimizing for one of those, or for the range. A side-by-side comparison of bead beating, mechanical homogenization, and pressure cycling against a high-throughput sonicator (PIXUL) on per-sample-type specialization, standardization across a varied plate, consumables, hands-off throughput, and when each is the right call.
Blog The case that wins funding isn't the lowest price. It's how much of the facility's range a single capital line absorbs — and how little it costs to keep running once it's in. The committee-defense argument that holds up: one versatile, self-maintained instrument that absorbs the facility's range and replaces several future single-purpose purchases — on open standard consumables the core controls.
Blog Both use the same acoustic disruption — the real question is what happens when you go from one sample at a time to a full plate. A side-by-side comparison of probe sonication and a plate-based high-throughput sonicator on format, operator involvement, consistency, cross-contamination, protein yield, exposure, and best fit.
Blog Acquisition is automated and prep is plate-based — but if cell disruption still runs one sample at a time, that's the step capping how many cohorts a proteomics core can take on. The bottleneck isn't the mass spec; it's the front end.
Blog The math facing a modern proteomics core is simple and unforgiving: more groups, more sample types, more requests against a budget that's flat. The economic and structural lens on why consolidating onto a versatile sample-prep front end is how a flat-budget core keeps saying yes.
Blog The constraint on a shared core isn't the mass spec. It's whether the front end can handle everything the mass spec is asked to measure. Five evaluation criteria a spec sheet misses, the emerging answer (high-throughput multi-sample sonication), and where the published evidence already points.