Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 168

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chemical Deamidation: A Common Pitfall in Large-Scale N-Linked Glycoproteomic Mass Spectrometry-Based Analyses

Palmisano, Giuseppe, Melo-Braga, Marcella N., Engholm-Keller, Kasper, Parker, Benjamin L., Larsen, Martin R.·2012·Journal of Proteome Research

Abstract

N-Linked glycoproteins are involved in several diseases and are important as potential diagnostic molecules for biomarker discovery. Therefore, it is important to provide sensitive and reliable analytical methods to identify not only the glycoproteins but also the sites of glycosylation. Recently, numerous strategies to identify N-linked glycosylation sites have been described. These strategies have been applied to cell lines and several tissues with the aim of identifying many hundreds (or thousands) of glycosylation events. With high-throughput strategies however, there is always the potential for false positives. The confusion arises since the protein N-glycosidase F (PNGase F) reaction used to separate N-glycans from formerly glycosylated peptides catalyzes the cleavage and deamidates the asparagine residue. This is typically viewed as beneficial since it acts to highlight the modification site. We have evaluated this common large-scale N-linked glycoproteomic strategy and proved potential pitfalls using Escherichia coli as a model organism, since it lacks the N-glycosylation machinery found in mammalian systems and some pathogenic microbes. After isolation and proteolytic digestion of E. coli membrane proteins, we investigated the presence of deamidated asparagines. The results show the presence of deamidated asparagines especially with close proximity to a glycine residue or other small amino acid, as previously described for spontaneous in vivo deamidation. Moreover, we have identified deamidated peptides with incorporation of (18)O, showing the pitfalls of glycosylation site assignment based on deamidation of asparagine induced by PNGase F in (18)O-water in large-scale analyses. These data experimentally prove the need for more caution in assigning glycosylation sites and "new" N-linked consensus sites based on common N-linked glycoproteomics strategies without proper control experiments. Besides showing the spontaneous deamidation, we provide alternative methods for validation that should be used in such experiments.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/pr2011268

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 168

Metadata

Authors
Palmisano, G., Melo-Braga, M. N., Engholm-Keller, K., Parker, B. L., & Larsen, M. R.
Venue
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2012-02-22
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
1949-1957
ISSN
  • 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-3907
OpenAlex
W2020392977
Cited by
168
References
1
FWCI
9.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.