GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
Jun 30, 2026 | Biopharma, Blogs | 0 comments
Glycosylation is one of the more structurally diverse and biologically impactful PTMs in protein therapeutics. Both N‑linked and O‑linked glycans influence protein folding, stability, and biological activity. Given these effects on biotherapeutics, glycosylation is a closely monitored critical quality attribute (CQA). Comprehensive and site‑specific characterization of glycosylation is essential for informed decision‑making throughout drug discovery and development.
However, the inherent heterogeneity of glycans and the labile nature of glycan–peptide linkages make confident characterization challenging using conventional collision‑based fragmentation alone.
Traditional collision‑induced dissociation (CID) preferentially fragments glycan moieties, often resulting in loss of the glycan structure from peptide backbone fragments. This behavior can limit the ability to confidently localize glycosylation sites or distinguish positional isomers, particularly for O‑linked glycosylation, where no consensus sequence exists. As a result, CID‑only workflows may provide incomplete or ambiguous information for glycan characterization in complex biotherapeutics.
Electron-activated dissociation (EAD) addresses these limitations by enabling electron‑driven backbone fragmentation while preserving labile glycan structures on the fragment ions. When applied to glycopeptides, EAD produces peptide backbone fragments that retain attached glycans, supporting unambiguous site localization and confident identification of glycoforms.
Key advantages of EAD for glycan analysis include:
O‑linked glycosylation presents a particular analytical challenge due to its structural diversity and lack of a consensus sequence motif. In the case of etanercept, a highly glycosylated fusion protein containing multiple O‑glycosylation sites, EAD‑based glycopeptide analysis enables confident identification and unambiguous localization of O‑linked glycans. (1) By preserving glycan structures on peptide backbone fragments, EAD further supports differentiation of positional isomers of O‑glycopeptides, which is difficult to achieve using CID alone.
For fusion proteins such as aflibercept, which contain multiple N‑linked glycosylation sites with extensive microheterogeneity, site‑specific glycan profiling is essential to understand glycan occupancy and distribution. EAD‑enabled peptide mapping workflows provide accurate localization of N‑linked glycans and confident peptide identification by generating extensive backbone fragmentation while retaining glycan modifications. Automated data processing using Biologics Explorer software further enables efficient interpretation of complex glycopeptide datasets.
EAD‑enabled glycan characterization workflows are supported by Biologics Explorer software, which provides optimized templates for peptide mapping and PTM analysis. Glycopeptide fragments are automatically identified, mapped, and annotated, with results presented in an integrated review environment that includes sequence coverage maps and MS/MS spectral views. This workflow‑driven approach reduces manual interpretation and supports reproducible, confident glycan characterization across development stages.
EAD‑based glycan characterization workflows support:
By combining information‑rich fragmentation, enhanced sensitivity, and automated data analysis, EAD on the ZenoTOF systems provides a practical and powerful solution for confident glycan characterization in modern biopharmaceutical development.
Visit the application page >
Read the technical notes:
Watch a webinar: Combining orthogonal glycan analysis techniques for a deeper understanding of a tri-specific protein
Want to explore further? Talk to a SCIEX expert here >
As therapeutic pipelines continue to diversify, bioanalysis is being asked to do more than ever before. From small molecules to complex biologics, today’s scientists must generate high‑quality, reliable data across a growing range of molecule types and workflows, often under increasing time pressure.
Regulated laboratories are evolving faster than ever. New analytical modalities, higher sample throughput, increasing regulatory scrutiny, and leaner teams are reshaping how work gets done. At the same time, expectations for data integrity, standardization, and operational efficiency continue to increase complexity and/or scope. In this environment, LC-MS software is no longer simply an instrument control platform—it has become a critical part of a laboratory’s quality management system. The question is no longer whether your lab has changed, but whether your software has evolved to support the way regulated labs operate today, and if they are ready and able to meet the demands, they will face tomorrow.
Analyst software has long been a trusted foundation in regulated LC-MS laboratories—and for many, it still performs reliably today. But regulated environments are evolving faster than ever. As labs transition to Windows 11, strengthen cybersecurity policies, modernize IT infrastructure, and prepare for future compliance expectations, software decisions are no longer just about what works today—they’re about managing tomorrow’s risk. Analyst will not be supported on Windows 11. While some labs may continue operating in unsupported environments temporarily, the bigger question is: when that risk becomes reality, will your lab be reacting under pressure—or executing a planned mitigation strategy with confidence?
Posted by
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Share this post with your network