Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31589631›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Method comparison for N-glycan profiling: Towards the standardization of glycoanalytical technologies for cell line analysis.

Maximilianos Kotsias, Athanasios Blanas, Sandra J van Vliet, Martina Pirro, Daniel I R Spencer, Radoslaw P Kozak

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Comparison of denaturing agent effects in enzymaticTurkish journal of chemistry · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Maximilianos KotsiasLudger Ltd., Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3417-782X
Athanasios BlanasAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sandra J van VlietAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1811-2687
Martina PirroLeiden University Medical Centre, Centre for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9562-2395
Daniel I R SpencerLudger Ltd., Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England, United Kingdom.
Radoslaw P KozakLudger Ltd., Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study of protein N-glycosylation is essential in biological and biopharmaceutical research as N-glycans have been reported to regulate a wide range of physiological and pathological processes. Monitoring glycosylation in diagnosis, prognosis, as well as biopharmaceutical development and quality control are important research areas. A number of techniques for the analysis of protein N-glycosylation are currently available. Here we examine three methodologies routinely used for the release of N-glycans, in the effort to establish and standardize glycoproteomics technologies for quantitative glycan analysis from cultured cell lines. N-glycans from human gamma immunoglobulins (IgG), plasma and a pool of four cancer cell lines were released following three approaches and the performance of each method was evaluated.

Indexed as

GlycomicsGlycoproteinsHCT116 CellsHT29 CellsHumansImmunoglobulin GPolysaccharidesSpectrometry, Mass, Electrospray IonizationGlycoproteinsImmunoglobulin GPolysaccharides

Identifiers

PMID31589631
PMCPMC6779296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.