Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Validation study reveals high error rates in automated glycopeptide searches in human serum, highlighting manual curation needs.
Given the significant role of glycosylation in modulating protein structure and activity, glycoproteomics is gaining increased interest from the broad scientific community. Large-scale site-resolved N-glycoproteomics relies on automated MS2-based searches, but candidate glycopeptide assignments can remain ambiguous when isomeric or isobaric glycan structures, adducts, chemical modifications, in-source fragments, or incomplete MS2 evidence support more than one plausible interpretation. Here, we systematically categorize common challenges and misassignments in glycoproteomics and present a post-search validation workflow using Skyline software to identify and correct these. The workflow matches search-engine-derived candidate assignments to LC–MS/MS evidence for correct precursor monoisotope assignment, retention time behavior, and glycosite context. The workflow is demonstrated with Byonic-derived glycopeptide candidate lists and converts automated search results into curated, verifiable, site-resolved N-glycopeptide features for downstream quantification and reporting. We applied the workflow to data from 52 human serum samples, and reviewed 3,071 candidate N-glycopeptide IDs. From these, 1,722 MS2 candidate IDs were refuted as inconsistent with chromatographic and/or precursor-level evidence. Curation added 320 glycopeptide features, comprising 152 MS1-supported composition-level assignments and 168 additional LC-resolved isomer features, yielding a final curated feature set of 1,436 N-glycopeptides across the serum N-glycoproteome. Together, these results show that reviewing the raw LC-MS/MS data associated with search-engine results improves both the accuracy and comprehensiveness of detectable N-glycopeptides, supporting more transparent and reliable reporting. The curated dataset provides a resource for future method development, benchmarking and machine–learning efforts directed at automated glycopeptide validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Urminsky et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: