MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170810564 · doi:10.14440/jbm.2015.52

Isolation and quantification of N-glycans from immunoglobulin G antibodies for quantitative glycosylation analysis

2015· article· en· W2170810564 on OpenAlexaff
Venkata S. Tayi, Michael Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Methods · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycosylationGlycanBiopharmaceuticalMonoclonal antibodyAntibodyChemistryFragment crystallizable regionGlycoproteinChromatographyBiochemistryMolecular biologyBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

N-glycosylation is one of the critical quality attributes for the therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Characterization of N-glycans of monoclonal antibodies provides valuable information about its therapeutic efficacy. We present a non-invasive method of isolating N-glycans from Immunoglobulin G based antibodies for glycosylation analysis. The method consists of purification of antibodies from biological solution and release of N-glycans with peptide-N-glycosidase F in a single consolidated process using a mini affinity ligand column (e.g. protein-A column). The method is highly reproducible with average coefficient of variation of 0.012 in the glycoform percentage distributions between the replicates. The method provides quantification of the molar yield of glycans as a function of molar concentration of antibody in a single analysis. To our knowledge, this is the first time this approach was used to detect and quantify any macro-heterogeneity of N-glycosylation in monoclonal antibody samples. This fairly rapid and very cost-efficient method would be of great interest for academic labs and biopharmaceutical industries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological MethodsSame topicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins ResearchFrench-language works237,207