Atom-level Machine Learning of Protein-Glycan Interactions and Cross-chiral Recognition in Glycobiology
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1126/sciadv.adx6373 · Paper page
Abstract
Cross-chiral recognition in glycobiology is the interactions between biologically conventional proteins and the enantiomers of biological glycans (e.g., L-proteins binding with L-hexoses) from organisms across all kingdoms of life. By symmetry, it also describes the interactions of chirally mirrored proteins with normal D-glycans. Knowledge of cross-chiral recognition is critical to understanding the potential interactions of existing life forms with artificial mirror-life forms, but currently known rules of protein-glycan interaction are insufficient. To build a methodology for learning such interactions, we used machine learned models that can predict binding strength between a set of proteins and glycans represented as graphs of atoms, rather than monosaccharides. Atomic q -gram and Morgan fingerprint (MF) based representation of glycans made it possible to train ML models that predict lectin binding properties of glycans, glycomimetic compounds, and enantiomers of all natural glycans. Critical to this training was merging disparate data—some with relative fluorescence units (RFU) from glycan microarrays and others with K d values from ITC—using a universal “fraction bound” parameter f at a specific lectin concentration. A fully-connected neural network architecture, MCNet takes a MF and concentration (C) as inputs and returns f for 147 lectins. Performance of MCNet is comparable to the GlyNet models, and by proxy to other state-of-the art models that predict strength of protein-glycan interactions. MCNet effectively predicts binding of glycomimetic compounds to Galectins 1, 3, and 7. Breaking from a monosaccharide-based description makes it possible for MCNet to predict cross-chiral recognition. We employed a Liquid Glycan Array to validate some predictions, such as the lack of interactions of L-mannose with D-mannose binding lectins, purified ConA, and DC-SIGN displayed on cells, and weak binding of L-Man to galactose-binding lectins and L-Glc binding by canonical fucose binding lectins. MCNet’s atom-level input makes it possible to agglomerate protein-glycan data from diverse glycans across all kingdoms of life and non-glycan structures (e.g. glycomimetic compounds). The universal fraction bound parameter makes it possible to unify disparate quantitative observations ( K d / IC 50 , RFU, chromatographic retention times, etc.). We believe that such an approach will facilitate a merger of knowledge from diverse glycobiology datasets and predict protein interactions with uncommon/unnatural glycans not attainable from current ML models.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Predictions from Deep Learning Propose Substantial Protein-Carbohydrate Interplay
Canner, S. W., Schnaar, R. L., & Gray, J. J. (2025) · doi:10.1101/2025.03.07.641884 · Cited by 4 · cited 1× · see citing works
“An interesting example are C-type lectins, it is not known how many of the C-type lectins actually bind to traditional or non-traditional glycans 15,16 .”
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Carpenter, E. J., Peng, C., Wang, S.-K., Greiner, R., & Derda, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- National Tsing Hua University (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Derda, Ratmir
- Venue
- Science Advances
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2025-01-21
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 49
- Pages
- eadx6373-eadx6373
- ISSN
- 2375-2548 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12680057
- OpenAlex
- W4417091407
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10
- FWCI
- 2.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Science Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Genome Canada
- Canada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (180445)
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (rgpin-2019-04927, RGPIN-2016-402511, 402511)
- National Research Council Canada (#RGPIN- 916 2016-402511)
- Canadian Glycomics Network (CR-29 and TP−22, CR-29, TP-22)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Glycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Carbohydrate Chemistry and Synthesis
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- glycan-protein interactions, glycan-binding proteins, chiral recognition, glycan microarrays, fucose-binding lectin, binding affinity prediction, glycobiology
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Polysaccharides, Protein Binding, Proteins, Lectins, Glycomics
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