ReviewChemSusChem2025
Sustainable Natural Product Glycosylation: A Critical Evaluation of Biocatalytic and Chemical Approaches.
Review in ChemSusChem, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do We Still Need Chemistry for Water-Soluble Prodrugs? What Biocatalysis Already Does, and What It Does Not.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Enzymatic 1,4-addition of 2-hydroxy-3-keto-glucal for β-selective aryl-Chemical communications (Cambridge, England) · 2026Article
- Advances in Enzymatic Production of Prebiotic Oligosaccharides from Agro-Industrial Waste: A Critical Review and Industrial Framework.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Enzymatic Glucosylation Enhances the Solubility of Niclosamide but Abrogates Its Therapeutic Efficacy.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Sustainable Natural Product Glycosylation: A Critical Evaluation of Biocatalytic and Chemical Approaches.ChemSusChem · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The glycosylation of natural products can significantly enhance their physicochemical properties, with numerous synthetic and biocatalytic methodologies continuously being developed, each presenting unique advantages and challenges. Biocatalytic methods are often presumed to be more sustainable alternatives to chemical approaches; however, their environmental and economic viabilities require critical evaluation. This review summarizes the recent advancements in natural product glycosylation and provides a comprehensive techno-economic and environmental assessment based on yield, titer, rate, environmental factor, and impact on endpoint categories using a life cycle impact assessment approach. Although biocatalytic methods are highlighted for their superior yields, they are frequently hindered by lower titers and reaction rates compared to their chemical counterparts. Surprisingly, chemical glycosylation exhibited lower environmental factors (E-factors), whereas biocatalytic approaches displayed lower impacts on endpoint categories, highlighting that E-factors fail to capture the environmental implications of a process. This review demonstrates the challenges associated with quantifying the environmental impacts of a process, especially given the lack of experimental detail reporting in the biocatalytic field. It exposes the misguided assumption that biocatalytic processes always exert lower environmental burdens and identifies key opportunities to enhance process efficiency and sustainability, providing guidance for selecting and developing a given natural product glycosylation reaction.
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.