MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962611369 · doi:10.1093/glycob/cwz050

Comparison of α2,6-sialyltransferases for sialylation of therapeutic proteins

2019· article· en· W2962611369 on OpenAlexaff
Bettina Janesch, Hirak Saxena, Lyann Sim, Warren W. Wakarchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueGlycobiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSialyltransferaseGlycanGlycosylationGlycoproteinRecombinant DNAGlycobiologyChemistryBiochemistrySialic acidComputational biologyBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of therapeutic proteins for the treatment of numerous diseases is one of the fastest growing areas of biotechnology. Therapeutic efficacy and serum half-life are particularly important, and these properties rely heavily on the glycosylation state of the protein. Expression systems to produce authentically fully glycosylated therapeutic proteins with appropriate terminal sialic acids are not yet perfected. The in vitro modification of therapeutic proteins by recombinant sialyltransferases offers a promising and elegant strategy to overcome this problem. Thus, the detailed expression and characterization of sialyltransferases for completion of the glycan chains is of great interest to the community. We identified a novel α2,6-sialyltransferase from Helicobacter cetorum and compared it to the human ST6Gal1 and a Photobacterium sp. sialyltransferase using glycoprotein substrates in a 96-well microtiter-plate-based assay. We demonstrated that the recombinant α2,6-sialyltransferase from H. cetorum is an excellent catalyst for modification of N-linked glycans of different therapeutic proteins.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlycobiologySame topicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins ResearchFrench-language works237,207