ArticleGlycoconjugate journal2018
One-pot analysis of sulfated glycosaminoglycans.
Article in Glycoconjugate journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural Elucidation of Glycosaminoglycans in the Tissue of Flounder and Isolation of Chondroitin Sulfate C.Marine drugs · 2024Article
- Extracellular matrix-derived materials for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: A journey from isolation to characterization and application.Bioactive materials · 2024Review
- Molecular Dynamics Approaches Dissect Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Methylene Blue-Glycosaminoglycan Interactions.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Sensitive method for glycosaminoglycan analysis of tissue sections.Journal of chromatography. A · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Routine isolation, estimation, and characterization of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) is quite challenging. This is compounded by the fact that the analysis is technique-intensive and more often there will be a limitation on the quantity of GAGs available for various structural, functional and biological studies. In such a scenario, the sample which can be made available for estimation and elucidation of disaccharide composition and species composition as well remains a challenge. In the present study, we have determined the feasibility where isolated sulfated GAGs (sGAG) that is estimated by metachromasia is recovered for further analysis. sGAG-DMMB complex formed after estimation of sGAG by DMMB dye-binding assay was decomplexed and sGAGs were recovered. Recovered sGAGs were analysed by cellulose acetate membrane electrophoresis and taken up for disaccharide composition analysis by HPLC after fluorescent labelling. Good recovery of sGAGs after metachromasia was observed in all samples of varying levels of purity by this protocol. Further analysis using cellulose acetate membrane electrophoresis showed good separation between species of sGAGs namely chondroitin/dermatan sulfate and heparan sulfate, with comparatively lesser interference from hyaluronic acid, a non-sulfated GAG. Analysis of recovered sGAGs, specifically heparan sulfate by HPLC showed characteristic disaccharide composition akin to that of GAG obtained by the conventional protocol. Thus, in the present paper, we show that sGAG can be recovered in comparatively purer form after routine estimation and can be used for further analysis thus saving up on the precious sample.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.