ArticlePloS one2019
Improved and semi-automated reductive β-elimination workflow for higher throughput protein O-glycosylation analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revealing Glycosylation Patterns inJournal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2024Article
- Labeling of Mucin-TypeACS measurement science au · 2024Article
- Mass Spectrometry Strategies forCells · 2024Review
- Eliminative Oximation of O-Glycans from Mucins.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Advancements in automation for plasma proteomics sample preparation.Molecular omics · 2022Review
- MALDI-2 for the Enhanced Analysis ofAnalytical chemistry · 2020Article
- Review
- Structural and Quantitative Characterization of Mucin-TypeBiomolecules · 2020Article
- On enzymatic remodeling of IgG glycosylation; unique tools with broad applications.Glycobiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protein O-glycosylation has shown to be critical for a wide range of biological processes, resulting in an increased interest in studying the alterations in O-glycosylation patterns of biological samples as disease biomarkers as well as for patient stratification and personalized medicine. Given the complexity of O-glycans, often a large number of samples have to be analysed in order to obtain conclusive results. However, most of the O-glycan analysis work done so far has been performed using glycoanalytical technologies that would not be suitable for the analysis of large sample sets, mainly due to limitations in sample throughput and affordability of the methods. Here we report a largely automated system for O-glycan analysis. We adapted reductive β-elimination release of O-glycans to a 96-well plate system and transferred the protocol onto a liquid handling robot. The workflow includes O-glycan release, purification and derivatization through permethylation followed by MALDI-TOF-MS. The method has been validated according to the ICH Q2 (R1) guidelines for the validation of analytical procedures. The semi-automated reductive β-elimination system enabled for the characterization and relative quantitation of O-glycans from commercially available standards. Results of the semi-automated method were in good agreement with the conventional manual in-solution method while even outperforming it in terms of repeatability. Release of O-glycans for 96 samples was achieved within 2.5 hours, and the automated data acquisition on MALDI-TOF-MS took less than 1 minute per sample. This largely automated workflow for O-glycosylation analysis showed to produce rapid, accurate and reliable data, and has the potential to be applied for O-glycan characterization of biological samples, biopharmaceuticals as well as for biomarker discovery.
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.