Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5667_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
10 Мб
Скачать
☆
5 Antiadhesive Carbohydrates and Glycomimetics
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
156
60 Di Gianvincenzo, P., Chiodo, F., Marradi, M. etal. (2012). Methods in Enzymology
509: 21–40.
61 Budhadev, D., Poole, E., Nehlmeier, I. etal. (2020). Journal of the American
Chemical Society 142: 18022–18034.
62 Arosio, D., Chiodo, F., Reina, J.J. etal. (2014). Bioconjugate Chemistry 25:
2244–2251.
63 Guo, Y., Sakonsinsiri, C., Nehlmeier, I. etal. (2016). Angewandte Chemie
International Edition 55: 4738–4742.
64 Guo, Y., Nehlmeier, I., Poole, E. etal. (2017). Journal of the American Chemical
Society 139: 11833–11844.
65 Shamout, F., Monaco, A., Yilmaz, G. etal. (2020). Macromolecular Rapid
Communications 41: e1900459.
66 Beyer, V.P., Monaco, A., Napier, R. etal. (2020). Biomacromolecules 21: 2298–2308. 67 Becer, C.R., Gibson, M.I., Geng, J. etal. (2010). Journal of the American Chemical
Society 132: 15130–15132.
68 Brument, S., Cheneau, C., Brissonnet, Y. etal. (2017). Organic & Biomolecular
Chemistry 15: 7660–7671.
69 Cramer, J., Aliu, B., Jiang, X. etal. (2021). ChemMedChem 16: 2345–2353. 70 Rai, R., Alwani, S., and Badea, I. (2019). Polymers (Basel) 11: 745. 71 Herrendorff, R., Hänggi, P., Pfister, H. etal. (2017). Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 114: E3689–E3698.
72 Aliu, B., Demeestere, D., Seydoux, E. etal. (2020). Journal of Neurochemistry 154:
486–501.
73 Morbioli, I., Porkolab, V., Magini, A. etal. (2017). Carbohydrate Research 453,
454: 36–43.
74 Taouai, M., Porkolab, V., Chakroun, K. etal. (2019). Bioconjugate Chemistry 30:
1114–1126.
75 Schaeffer, E., Dehuyser, L., Sigwalt, D. etal. (2013). Bioconjugate Chemistry 24:
1813–1823.
76 Rodríguez-Pérez, L., Ramos-Soriano, J., Pérez-Sánchez, A. etal. (2018). Journal of
the American Chemical Society 140: 9891–9898.
77 Mitchell, D.A., Jones, N.A., Hunter, S.J. etal. (2007). Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 18:
1502–1510.
78 Bernardi, A., Arosio, D., Manzoni, L. etal. (2001). The Journal of Organic
Chemistry 66: 6209–6216.
79 Reina, J.J., Sattin, S., Invernizzi, D. etal. (2007). ChemMedChem 2: 1030–1036. 80 Varga, N., Sutkeviciute, I., Guzzi, C. etal. (2013). Chemistry- A European Journal
19: 4786–4797.
81 Porkolab, V., Chabrol, E., Varga, N. etal. (2018). ACS Chemical Biology 13:
600–608.
82 Luczkowiak, J., Sattin, S., Sutkevičiute, I. etal. (2011). Bioconjugate Chemistry 22:
1354–1365.
83 Varga, N., Sutkeviciute, I., Ribeiro-Viana, R. etal. (2014). Biomaterials 35:
4175–4184.
References
84 Ordanini, S., Varga, N., Porkolab, V. etal. (2015). Chemical Communications 51:
3816–3819.
85 Berzi, A., Ordanini, S., Joosten, B. etal. (2016). Scientific Reports 6: 35373. 86 Thépaut, M., Luczkowiak, J., Vivès, C. etal. (2021). PLoS Pathogens 17: e1009576. 87 Cramer, J., Lakkaichi, A., Aliu, B. etal. (2021). Journal of the American Chemical
Society 143: 17465–17478.
88 Fihn, S.D. (2003). The New England Journal of Medicine 349: 259–266. 89 McLellan, L.K. and Hunstad, D.A. (2016). Trends in Molecular Medicine 22:
946–957.
90 Foxman, B., Somsel, P., Tallman, P. etal. (2001). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
54: 710–718.
91 Hooton, T.M., Scholes, D., Hughes, J.P. etal. (1996). The New England Journal of
Medicine 335: 468–474.
92 Cegelski, L., Marshall, G.R., Eldridge, G.R., and Hultgren, S.J. (2008). Nature
Reviews. Microbiology 6: 17–27.
93 Capitani, G., Eidam, O., Glockshuber, R., and Grütter, M.G. (2006). Microbes and
Infection 8: 2284–2290.
94 Schilling, J.D., Mulvey, M.A., and Hultgren, S.J. (2001). The Journal of Infectious
Diseases 183: S36–S40.
95 Hahn, E., Wild, P., Hermanns, U. etal. (2002). Journal of Molecular Biology 323:
845–857.
96 Waksman, G. and Hultgren, S.J. (2009). Nature Reviews. Microbiology 7: 765–774. 97 Sauer, M.M., Jakob, R.P., Eras, J. etal. (2016). Nature Communications 7: 10738. 98 Sauer, M.M., Jakob, R.P., Luber, T. etal. (2019). Journal of the American Chemical
Society 141: 936–944.
99 Thomas, W.E., Trintchina, E., Forero, M. etal. (2002). Cell 109: 913–923. 100 Aprikian, P., Tchesnokova, V., Kidd, B. etal. (2007). The Journal of Biological
Chemistry 282: 23437–23446.
101 Le Trong, I., Aprikian, P., Kidd, B.A. etal. (2010). Cell 141: 645–655. 102 Choudhury, D., Thompson, A., Stojanoff, V. etal. (1999). Science 285: 1061–1066. 103 Wellens, A., Garofalo, C., Nguyen, H. etal. (2008). PLoS One 3: e2040. 104 Bouckaert, J., Berglund, J., Schembri, M. etal. (2005). Molecular Microbiology 55:
441–455.
105 Wellens, A., Lahmann, M., Touaibia, M. etal. (2012). Biochemistry 51: 4790–4799. 106 Aronson, M., Medalia, O., Schori, L. etal. (1979). The Journal of Infectious
Diseases 139: 329–332.
107 Frei, P., Pang, L., Silbermann, M. etal. (2017). Chemistry- A European Journal 23:
11570–11577.
108 Han, Z.F., Pinkner, J.S., Ford, B. etal. (2010). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 53:
4779–4792.
109 Firon, N., Ashkenazi, S., Mirelman, D. etal. (1987). Infection and Immunity 55:
472–476.
110 Kleeb, S., Pang, L., Mayer, K. etal. (2015). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 58:
2221–2239.
157
5 Antiadhesive Carbohydrates and Glycomimetics
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
158
111 Klein, T., Abgottspon, D., Wittwer, M. etal. (2010). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
53: 8627–8641.
112 Pang, L.J., Kleeb, S., Lemme, K. etal. (2012). ChemMedChem 7: 1404–1422. 113 Han, Z.F., Pinkner, J.S., Ford, B. etal. (2012). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 55:
3945–3959.
114 Cusumano, C.K., Pinkner, J.S., Han, Z. etal. (2011). Science Translational
Medicine 3: 109–115.
115 Jiang, X.H., Abgottspon, D., Kleeb, S. etal. (2012). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
55: 4700–4713.
116 Sperling, O., Fuchs, A., and Lindhorst, T.K. (2006). Organic & Biomolecular
Chemistry 4: 3913–3922.
117 Pang, L., Bezençon, J., Kleeb, S. etal. (2017). FimH antagonists– solubility vs.
permeability. In: Carbohydrate Chemistry: Volume 42 (ed. A.P. Rauter, T. Lindhorst, and Y. Queneau), 248–273. Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
118 Touaibia, M., Shiao, T.C., Papadopoulos, A. etal. (2007). Chemical
Communications 4: 380–382.
119 Sperling, O., Dubber, M., and Lindhorst, T.K. (2007). Carbohydrate Research 342:
696–703.
120 Almant, M., Moreau, V., Kovensky, J. etal. (2011). Chemistry- A European Journal
17: 10029–10038.
121 Ortega-Caballero, F., Gimenez-Martinez, J.J., and Vargas-Berenguel, A. (2003).
Org. Lett 5: 2389–2392.
122 Bouckaert, J., Li, Z., Xavier, C. etal. (2013). Chemistry- A European Journal 19:
7847–7855.
123 Lindhorst, T.K., Kieburg, C., and Krallmann-Wenzel, U. (1998). Glycoconjugate
Journal 15: 605–613.
124 Touaibia, M., Wellens, A., Shiao, T.C. etal. (2007). ChemMedChem 2: 1190–1201. 125 Nierengarten, I., Buffet, L., Holler, M. etal. (2013). Tetrahedron Letters 54:
2398–2402.
126 Durka, M., Buffet, K., Iehl, J. etal. (2011). Chemical Communications 47:
1321–1323.
127 Lindhorst, T.K. (2015). Small molecule ligands for bacterial lectins: letters of an
antiadhesive glycopolymer code. In: RSC Polymer Chemistry Series No. 15. Glycopolymer Code: Synthesis of Glycopolymers and Their Applications (ed. C.R. Becer and L. Hartmann), 1–16. Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
128 Tseng, C.C., Lin, W.H., Wu, A.B. etal. (2020). Journal of Microbiology,
Immunology, and Infection https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2020.09.001.
129 Sarshar, M., Behzadi, P., Ambrosi, C. etal. (2020). Antibiotics (Basel) 9: 397. 130 Ribić, R., Meštrović, T., Neuberg, M., and Kozina, G. (2019). Medical Hypotheses
124: 17–20.
131 de Bentzmann, S. and Plesiat, P. (2011). Environmental Microbiology 13:
1655–1665.
References
132 Hogardt, M. and Heesemann, J. (2013). Current Topics in Microbiology and
Immunology 358: 91–118.
133 Lambert, P.A. (2002). Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 95 (Suppl 41): 22–26. 134 Imberty, A., Wimmerova, M., Mitchell, E.P., and Gilboa-Garber, N. (2004).
Microbes and Infection 6: 222–229.
135 Cioci, G., Mitchell, E.P., Gautier, C. etal. (2003). FEBS Letters 555: 297–301. 136 Winzer, K., Falconer, C., Garber, N.C. etal. (2000). Journal of Bacteriology 182:
6401–6411.
137 Perret, S., Sabin, C., Dumon, C. etal. (2005). The Biochemical Journal 389:
325–332.
138 Chemani, C., Imberty, A., de Bentzmann, S. etal. (2009). Infection and Immunity
77: 2065–2075.
139 Weichert, S., Jennewein, S., Hüfner, E. etal. (2013). Nutrition Research 33:
831–838.
140 von Bismarck, P., Schneppenheim, R., and Schumacher, U. (2001). Klinische
Pädiatrie 213: 285–287.
141 Wagner, S., Sommer, R., Hinsberger, S. etal. (2016). Journal of Medicinal
Chemistry 59: 5929–5969.
142 Meiers, J., Zahorska, E., Röhrig, T. etal. (2020). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 63:
11707–11724.
143 Joachim, I., Rikker, S., Hauck, D. etal. (2016). Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry
14: 7933–7948.
144 Mitchell, E.P., Sabin, C., Snajdrová, L. etal. (2005). Proteins 58: 735–746. 145 Kadam, R.U., Garg, D., Schwartz, J. etal. (2013). ACS Chemical Biology 8:
1925–1930.
146 Kadam, R.U., Bergmann, M., Garg, D. etal. (2013). Chemistry 19: 17054–17063. 147 Kadam, R.U., Bergmann, M., Hurley, M. etal. (2011). Angewandte Chemie
International Edition 50: 10631–10635.
148 Pertici, F., de Mol, N.J., Kemmink, J., and Pieters, R.J. (2013). Chemistry 19:
16923–16927.
149 Boukerb, A.M., Rousset, A., Galanos, N. etal. (2014). Journal of Medicinal
Chemistry 57: 10275–10289.
150 Sommer, R., Wagner, S., Varrot, A. etal. (2016). Chemical Science 7: 4990–5001. 151 Sommer, R., Exner, T.E., and Titz, A. (2014). PLoS One 9: e112822. 152 Sommer, R., Hauck, D., Varrot, A. etal. (2015). ChemistryOpen 4: 756–767. 153 Hauck, D., Joachim, I., Frommeyer, B. etal. (2013). ACS Chemical Biology 8:
1775–1784.
154 Sommer, R., Wagner, S., Rox, K. etal. (2018). Journal of the American Chemical
Society 140: 2537–2545.
155 Sommer, R., Rox, K., Wagner, S. etal. (2019). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 62:
9201–9216.
156 Imberty, A., Chabre, Y.M., and Roy, R. (2008). Chemistry 14: 7490–7499. 157 Marotte, K., Sabin, C., Préville, C. etal. (2007). ChemMedChem 2: 1328–1338. 158 Marotte, K., Préville, C., Sabin, C. etal. (2007). Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry
5: 2953–2961.
159
5 Antiadhesive Carbohydrates and Glycomimetics
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
160
159 Kolomiets, E., Swiderska, M.A., Kadam, R.U. etal. (2009). ChemMedChem 4:
562–569.
160 Magnani, J.L., Patton, J.T., Sarkar, A.K. US Patent 7517980B2, filled 08 August 8
2006 and issued 14 April 2009.
161 Ventola, C.L. (2015). Pharmacology and Therapeutics 40: 277–283. 162 Cusumano, Z.T., Klein, R.D., and Hultgren, S.J. (2016). Microbiology Sprectrum
4: 1–31.
163 Cramer, J., Sager, C.P., and Ernst, B. (2019). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 62:
8915–8930.
164 Cramer, J., Jiang, X., Schönemann, W. etal. (2020). RSC Chemical Biology 1:
281–287.
165 Sager, C.P., Eriş, D., Smieško, M. etal. (2017). Beilstein Journal of Organic
Chemistry 13: 2584–2595.
166 Hudson, K.L., Bartlett, G.J., Diehl, R.C. etal. (2015). Journal of the American
Chemical Society 137: 15152–15160.
167 Binder, F.P.C., Lemme, K., Preston, R.C. etal. (2012). Angewandte Chemie
International Edition 51: 7327–7331.
168 Kiessling, L.L., Young, T., Gruber, T.D. etal. (2008). Multivalency in protein–
carbohydrate recognition. In: Glycoscience (ed. B.O. Fraser-Reid, K. Tatsuta, and J. Thiem), 2483–2523. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
6
Targeting Carbohydrates inCancer–Analytical and Biotechnological Tools
Henrique O. Duarte
1


2


3

4

1,2
, Joana Gomes
1,2
, and Celso A. Reis
1,2,3,4
6.1 Aberrant Protein Glycosylation inCancer
161
Glycosylation is defined as the enzymatic assembly of complex carbohydrate chains, or glycans, from simple monosaccharide sugar building blocks, and their covalent attachment to a diverse range of macromolecules to form an ensemble of distinct types of glycoconjugates, which, as a whole, constitute the cellular glycome [1]. Depending on the nature of their nonglycan component, glycoconjugates can be grouped into glycosphingolipids, proteoglycans, and glycoproteins. Glycoproteins constitute the main focus of this chapter. Although numerous cytoplasmic proteins represent eligible targets for dynamic glycosylation, the majority of a cell’s glycan repertoire decorates both secreted and membrane‐bound macromolecules[2]. The oligosaccharidic component of cell surface glycoproteins, which faces the extracel­lular space, forms an electron‐dense layer known as the glycocalyx, which, under homeostasis, actively regulates a plethora of biological processes occurring inside and around a cell. Indeed, this layer of glycoconjugates constitutes a vital interface between a cell and the surrounding microenvironment, which includes not only neighboring cells but also noncellular components, such as elements of the extra­cellular matrix (ECM). This privileged localization grants the cellular glycome sig­nificant control over key biological processes, including proliferation, differentiation, motility, cytoskeletal rearrangements, inter‐ and extracellular communication, and neoplastic transformation[3].
The major glycan signatures that are significantly enriched in tumor cells and
that have been mechanistically linked to malignant cellular transformation include:
Carbohydrate-Based Therapeutics, First Edition. Edited by Roberto Adamo and Luigi Lay. © 2024 WILEY-VCH GmbH. Published 2024 by WILEY-VCH GmbH.
 
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
162
highly branched N‐glycan chains [4], highly fucosylated and sialylated glycans (including Lewis antigens)[5, 6], extended lactosamine polymers[7], and short pre­maturely terminated O‐glycan structures (such as Tn, sialyl Tn [STn], and
antigens) [8]. The upregulation of specific aberrant carbohydrate antigens is
T accom
panied by the concomitant reduction of specific homeostatic signatures, including bisected N‐glycans. Aberrant glycan traits actively tune key malignant properties of proteins participating in central cellular processes driving oncogenic transformation, including mitogenic signaling, cell adhesion, motility, and invasion; metabolic regulation; interaction with cellular and acellular components of the immune system; angiogenic growth; apoptosis evasion; and acquisition of molecu­lar resistance to targeted therapeutic agents[1, 9–11].
Given that tumor‐associated carbohydrate antigens (TACAs) have their expres­sion highly restricted to neoplastic tissues and play an undeniable role in the gov­erning of malignant cell behavior, they have emerged as valuable theranostic tools in the clinical oncology field, either as robust and specific biomarkers for disease detection and monitoring, or as promising, yet still underexplored candidates for therapeutic targeting[10, 12–14]. Such efforts require the thorough characterization of aberrant tumor‐specific glycan alterations in patient neoplastic lesions as well as the mechanistic dissection of their oncogenic role through the establishment of robust in vitro and invivo models of disease. However, several structural and bio­logical features of glycans pose unique challenges to their study. Firstly, despite the limited number of monosaccharides from which complex carbohydrates can be generated, glycans exhibit remarkable structural diversity stemming from: the spe­cific composition and sequence of their constituent building blocks; the precise ano­meric configuration and position of glycosidic linkages; variable degrees of branching and extension; and their potential to undergo further structural modifi­cations, including sulfation, phosphorylation, and acetylation. Secondly, as glyco­sylation reflects the post-translational modification of multiple proteins, the accurate identification and tissue mapping of specific glycan epitopes through the use of traditional immunohistochemical approaches based on monoclonal antibod­ies (mAbs) and glycan‐binding proteins (GBPs), including lectins of mammalian or plant origin, can be difficult to achieve. Furthermore, the expression of a single carbohydrate product results from the coordinated expression, activity, and localiza­tion of multiple isoenzymes, often showing partially redundant and overlapping specificities. This significantly increases the biological complexity required from genome‐edited invitro and invivo models for the dissection of glycan biosynthetic pathways. Moreover, the cellular glycosylation landscape is highly dynamic and sensitive to spatiotemporal regulation, which further compromises the translational value of data retrieved from simpler glycoengineered cell and animal models. In addition, since identical monosaccharide compositions often reflect distinct tridi­mensional carbohydrate structures with distinct functional attributes, the develop­ment of analytical tools capable of retrieving isomeric linkage information has become fundamental for glycan structural characterization. Finally, although infor­mation on the glycan site occupancy and microheterogeneity of a given
glycoprotein
    
is essential to define its biological role, it may prove difficult to determine experi­mentally. Indeed, linking a particular glycan structure to a defined biological func­tion remains a challenging task.
This chapter will discuss how recently developed analytical and biotechnological tools have significantly contributed to overcome the challenges posed by the unique features of glycans and their intricate biosynthetic pathways, thus supporting the structural and functional characterization of protein glycosylation in the context of human neoplastic transformation and the successful establishment of glycan‐based biomarkers and therapeutic targets for the clinical management of cancer patients (Figure6.1).
163
Figure6.1 Biotechnological and analytical tools for the identification, functional characterization, and clinical application of glycan-based cancer biomarkers; FFPE - formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded; MS - mass spectrometry; GT - glycosyltransferase; GBP - glycan-binding protein.
 
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
164
6.2 Detection and Mapping ofCarbohydrate-Based Antigens inHuman Neoplastic Tissues
Over the past decades, numerous studies have sought to comprehensively charac­terize both the nature and impact of glycosylation alterations occurring within malignant cells and tissues (reviewed in[9]). In particular, the advent of hybridoma technology just under 50 unlimited catalog of highly specific mAbs for the reliable detection of any type of biological antigen, including glycans, and has, therefore, revolutionized the field of cancer biomarker discovery[15]. Indeed, the development of highly specific mAbs targeting TACAs, such as the prematurely truncated O‐glycan determinant STn, allowed the unprecedented disclosure of their tissue-based cancer‐specific expres­sion pattern [16–18]. In the hybridoma system, activated immunoglobulin‐secreting B cells, previously challenged with an isolated and structurally defined antigen of interest (ideally), are fused with myeloma cells, generating a hybrid, isogenic, and immortalized cell line with antibody‐producing capacity [19]. Generally, mAb‐ based tissue mapping of entirely peptidic epitopes with a known sequence can be performed with reasonable certainty, as the specificity of the used mAb can be accu­rately determined. However, the signals produced by carbohydrate‐binding mAbs often reflect the expression of a variety of distinct protein carriers, which hinders the precise identification of the target glycan epitope [20]. The same limitation applies to other glycan‐recognizing molecules whose carbohydrate specificity is not fully determined, including polyclonal antibody mixtures and other GBPs. The poor affinity of lectins, usually in the low micromolar range, frequently limits their appli­cation for histochemical staining purposes[1, 21]. Indeed, these glycan‐ molecules do not provide insights on complete monosaccharide compositions, gly­can tridimensional conformation, glycosylation site occupancy, microheterogene­ity, or the precise location of glycan chains on the backbone of specific glycoproteins. Such affinity reagents facilitate the identification of broader glycosylation traits (e.g. N‐glycan branching, core fucosylation, and linkage‐specific sialylation) rather than elucidating the exact tridimensional structure of individual glycan species. In fact, such information may only be accurately retrieved through the implementation of increasingly complex mass spectrometry (MS)‐based methods. However, the major­ity of glycan‐directed analytical techniques, including MS‐based workflows, require analyte extraction from the target tissue, which, in turn, leads to the loss of informa­tion on glycan spatial distribution and tissue histopathological architecture.
years ago has supported the generation of a virtually
binding
6.3 Imaging Mass Spectrometry
The recent development and maturation of imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) tech­nology has significantly contributed to the circumvention of such technical limita­tions since it does not rely on target‐specific reagents but rather on direct molecular measurements[22]. Indeed, this technique has been used to directly characterize the N‐glycosylation profile of neoplastic tissue sections by generating two‐ and
   
three‐dimensional (3D) molecular maps of hundreds of distinct glycan species across a wide mass range while also providing information on analyte relative abun­dance and on‐tissue spatial distribution, which can be directly linked to the histo­pathological data from the same clinical specimen [22–29]. The IMS technology provides the mass accuracy and chemical specificity of MS‐based detection and sup­ports further on‐tissue tandem MS fragmentation (e.g. collision‐induced fragmenta­tion) to achieve exact structure identification while still preserving the spatial distribution of individual analytes and the histopathological landscape of the target tissue. The implementation of IMS workflows in the cancer research field is of par­ticular relevance since most clinically approved cancer biomarkers are either glyco­proteins or carbohydrate antigens.
The typical IMS glycomic workflow requires the total release of asparagine‐linked N‐glycans through the surface digestion of the target tissue section with Peptide‐N‐ glycosidase F (PNGase F), an endoglycosidase that efficiently hydrolyzes the amide bond linking the innermost N‐acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc) of the N‐glycan core to the asparagine’s side chain of the protein’s peptidic backbone, and the subsequent MS‐based identification and relative quantification of the released carbohydrate species. Possible additives in the enzyme’s storage buffer, including glycerol or detergents, may cause ion suppression during the ionization process, which dimin­ishes the quality of the retrieved spectra[30, 31]. IMS‐based analysis of biological samples can be performed using one of several MS ionization techniques, which offer complementary capabilities regarding both spatial resolution and the mass range of the target analytes. The matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI)‐IMS has become increasingly popular in the analysis of glycans due to its high sensitivity and wide mass range. The preparation of tissue sections involves the automated and uniform coating of the target sample with an energy‐absorbing matrix for efficient and homogeneous analyte ionization. Conveniently, IMS work­flows are compatible with on‐tissue sialic acid (Neu5Ac) chemical derivatization, which allows for linkage‐specific discrimination of sialylated glycan species, and with positive glycan labeling, which significantly improves signal‐to‐noise ratios [29, 32]. Generated molecular maps of analyte spatial distribution and relative abundance can then be overlapped with brightfield optical images, such as the cor­responding hematoxylin/eosin (H&E) staining of the same tissue section. The obtained structural and semiquantitative data can then be allocated to well‐defined histological regions (e.g. nontransformed adjacent mucosa, immune infiltrate, necrosis, and tumor regions) based on a pathologist’s annotation, making the IMS technology particularly valuable in the study of solid tumors. Furthermore, subse­quent off‐tissue extraction and MS‐based fragmentation of released N‐glycan spe­cies allow for unequivocal structural identification. Typically, the MALDI‐IMS analysis of one cancer tissue section allows the reliable detection of 40–60 distinct glycan structures[33].
This methodology is highly versatile, and its robustness has been validated across various types of clinical samples, including formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks and fresh frozen tissue specimens[23, 24, 34–36]. The incorpo­ration of multiple individual FFPE tissue specimens in the tissue microarray (TMA)
165