Oxonium Ion Guided Analysis of Quantitative Proteomics Data Reveals Site-Specific O-Glycosylation of Anterior Gradient Protein 2 (AGR2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developments in mass spectrometry (MS)-based analyses of glycoproteins have been important to study changes in glycosylation related to disease. Recently, the characteristic pattern of oxonium ions in glycopeptide fragmentation spectra had been used to assign different sets of glycopeptides. In particular, this was helpful to discriminate between O-GalNAc and O-GlcNAc. Here, we thought to investigate how such information can be used to examine quantitative proteomics data. For this purpose, we used tandem mass tag (TMT)-labeled samples from total cell lysates and secreted proteins from three different colorectal cancer cell lines. Following automated glycopeptide assignment (Byonic) and evaluation of the presence and relative intensity of oxonium ions, we observed that, in particular, the ratio of the ions at m/z 144.066 and 138.055, respectively, could be used to discriminate between O-GlcNAcylated and O-GalNAcylated peptides, with concomitant relative quantification between the different cell lines. Among the O-GalNAcylated proteins, we also observed anterior gradient protein 2 (AGR2), a protein which glycosylation site and status was hitherto not well documented. Using a combination of multiple fragmentation methods, we then not only assigned the site of modification, but also showed different glycosylation between intracellular (ER-resident) and secreted AGR2. Overall, our study shows the potential of broad application of the use of the relative intensities of oxonium ions for the confident assignment of glycopeptides, even in complex proteomics datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".