4.6 Article

Fine-Mapping of the Human Blood Plasma N-Glycome onto Its Proteome

期刊

METABOLITES
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/metabo9070122

关键词

glycomics; proteomics; N-glycosylation; population study; aptamers; HILIC-UPLC; SOMAscan

资金

  1. 'Biomedical Research Program' funds at Weill Cornell Medicine in Qatar, a program - Qatar Foundation
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Medical Research Council
  4. European Union
  5. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded BioResource
  6. Clinical Research Facility and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
  7. King's College London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most human proteins are glycosylated. Attachment of complex oligosaccharides to the polypeptide part of these proteins is an integral part of their structure and function and plays a central role in many complex disorders. One approach towards deciphering this human glycan code is to study natural variation in experimentally well characterized samples and cohorts. High-throughput capable large-scale methods that allow for the comprehensive determination of blood circulating proteins and their glycans have been recently developed, but so far, no study has investigated the link between both traits. Here we map for the first time the blood plasma proteome to its matching N-glycome by correlating the levels of 1116 blood circulating proteins with 113 N-glycan traits, determined in 344 samples from individuals of Arab, South-Asian, and Filipino descent, and then replicate our findings in 46 subjects of European ancestry. We report protein-specific N-glycosylation patterns, including a correlation of core fucosylated structures with immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels, and of trisialylated, trigalactosylated, and triantennary structures with heparin cofactor 2 (SERPIND2). Our study reveals a detailed picture of protein N-glycosylation and suggests new avenues for the investigation of its role and function in the associated complex disorders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据