ArticleBBA advances2025
Expanding the recognition of monosaccharides and glycans: A comprehensive analytical approach using chemical-nose/tongue technology and a comparison to lectin microarrays.
Article in BBA advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polydopamine-Functionalized Magnetoliposomes as Magnetic Probes for Lectin-Glycan Interaction Analysis through Brownian Relaxation.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Article
- Introduction to a special issue, "Expanded glycomics: A bridge over future glycomics".BBA advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chemical-nose/tongue technologies are emerging as promising analytical tools for glycan analysis. After briefly introducing the importance of glycans and their analytical methods, including the lectin microarray (LMA) as one of the gold standards, the fundamental principles underlying chemical noses/tongues are explained and various applications for monosaccharides and glycans are introduced. Then, the similarities and differences of these two approaches are discussed. While both technologies aim to comprehensively profile biospecimens based on 'interaction patterns' between multiple recognition probes and analytes, each has its own strengths. LMAs excel at specific, targeted analysis based on defined lectin-glycan interactions, whereas chemical nose/tongue offers greater flexibility and expandability in terms of system design, making it well-suited for discovering unknown glycan profiles and detecting broader differences in glycan mixtures. In the future, chemical-nose/tongue technologies may be applied to niche areas in glycan analysis and become powerful tools that complement LMA techniques.
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.