MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411834654 · doi:10.1002/mas.21943

Quantifying Protein–Glycan Interactions Using Native Mass Spectrometry

2025· review· en· W4411834654 on OpenAlexafffund
Duong T. Bui, Elena N. Kitova, Ling Han, Lara K. Mahal, John S. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueMass Spectrometry Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGlycanGlycomicsChemistryInteractomeComputational biologyGlycoconjugateMass spectrometryGlycobiologyProtein–protein interactionBiochemistryGlycoproteinChromatographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactions between glycan-binding proteins (GBPs) and carbohydrates (glycans) are essential to many biological processes relevant to human health and disease. For most GBPs, however, their glycan interactome-the repertoire of glycans recognized and their specificities-is poorly defined. The structural diversity of biologically relevant glycans and their limited availability in purified form, as well as their varied presentation, often as glycoconjugates, and weak affinities are key challenges hindering comprehensive glycan interaction mapping. Native mass spectrometry (nMS), a versatile, sensitive and label-free tool for the discovery of GBP-glycan interactions and quantifying their stoichiometry and thermodynamic parameters, is poised to play a leading role in defining the glycan interactome of GBPs. Here, we review established nMS methodologies, as well as important experimental and instrumental considerations, for detecting GBP-glycan interactions in vitro, and reliably measuring their stoichiometry and affinity. Recent advances in nMS methods for high-throughput library screening, including shotgun glycomics, and quantifying GBP interactions with glycoproteins and glycosphingolipids, are also described.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMass Spectrometry ReviewsSame topicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins ResearchFrench-language works237,207