Plant‐specific glycosylation patterns in the context of therapeutic protein production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While N-glycan synthesis in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is relatively well conserved in eukaryotes, N-glycan processing and O-glycan biosynthesis in the Golgi apparatus are kingdom specific and result in different oligosaccharide structures attached to glycoproteins in plants and mammals. With the prospect of using plants as alternative hosts to mammalian cell lines for the production of therapeutic glycoproteins, significant progress has been made towards the humanization of protein N-glycosylation in plant cells. To date, successful efforts in this direction have mainly focused on the targeted expression of therapeutic proteins, the knockout of plant-specific N-glycan-processing genes, and/or the introduction of the enzymatic machinery catalyzing the synthesis, transport and addition of human sugars. By contrast, very little attention has been paid until now to the O-glycosylation status of plant-made therapeutic proteins, which is surprising considering that hundreds of human proteins represent good candidates for Hyp-O glycosylation when produced in a plant expression system. This review describes protein N- and O-linked glycosylation in plants and highlights the limitations and advantages of plant-specific glycosylation on plant-made biopharmaceuticals.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".