Significant Other Half of a Glycoconjugate: Contributions of Scaffolds to Lectin–Glycoconjugate Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The glycan epitopes of natural and synthetic glycoconjugates exist as covalent attachments of well-defined inner structures or scaffolds. Macromolecules such as proteins, peptides, lipids, and saccharides and synthetic structures serve as scaffolds of glycoconjugates. It is generally perceived that the biological activities of glycoconjugates are determined mainly by the attached glycans, while the seemingly inert inner scaffolds play a passive role by providing physical support to the attached glycan epitopes. However, our data show that scaffolds actively influence lectin recognition and can potentially modulate lectin-mediated signaling properties of glycoconjugates. Through in vitro experiments, we found that the scaffolds significantly altered the thermodynamic binding properties of the covalently attached glycan epitopes. When a free glycan was attached to a scaffold, its lectin binding entropy became more positive. The level of positive entropic gain was dependent on the types of scaffolds tested. For example, protein scaffolds of glycoproteins were found to generate more positive entropy of binding than synthetic scaffolds. Certain scaffolds were found to have limiting effects on glycoconjugate affinity. We also found that scaffold-bearing glycans with a similar affinity or an identical valence demonstrated different kinetics of lattice formation with lectins, when the scaffold structures were different. Our data support the view that scaffolds of glycoconjugates (i) help the covalently attached glycans become more spontaneous in lectin binding and (ii) help diversify the lattice forming or cross-linking properties of glycoconjugates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".