Glycopeptide database search and de novo sequencing with PEAKS GlycanFinder enable highly sensitive glycoproteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we present GlycanFinder, a database search and de novo sequencing tool for the analysis of intact glycopeptides from mass spectrometry data. GlycanFinder integrates peptide-based and glycan-based search strategies to address the challenge of complex fragmentation of glycopeptides. A deep learning model is designed to capture glycan tree structures and their fragment ions for de novo sequencing of glycans that do not exist in the database. We performed extensive analyses to validate the false discovery rates (FDRs) at both peptide and glycan levels and to evaluate GlycanFinder based on comprehensive benchmarks from previous community-based studies. Our results show that GlycanFinder achieved comparable performance to other leading glycoproteomics softwares in terms of both FDR control and the number of identifications. Moreover, GlycanFinder was also able to identify glycopeptides not found in existing databases. Finally, we conducted a mass spectrometry experiment for antibody N-linked glycosylation profiling that could distinguish isomeric peptides and glycans in four immunoglobulin G subclasses, which had been a challenging problem to previous studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".