How can we use this network most effectively? At the outset, I thought it would be useful to think collectively about this question. To get things going, I’ll make a few suggestions for topic categories (somewhat overlapping in nature) that might be fruitful to explore. I apologize for being wordy here, I hope that our subgroup interactions can be more in the spirit of conversation rather than long-winded discourse, but we need to start somewhere.

Topic 1. Wouldn’t it be nice to have…

The thing that you are thinking that you need right now may already be under development by somebody else. And, we all know how frequently it happens that somebody is building a tool that will eventually be of great value but it’s development would be enhanced by real world trials or by application of real world data. A totally (?) fictitious example:

Post 1: I’ve got hundreds/thousands of glycan fragmentation profiles showing minor fragment ions that I can’t assign. It sure would be great to have a predictive program that gives me a list of realistic options.

Post 2: I’ve got a new applet that can take your list of fragments and present candidate structures with annotated fragmentation but need some real data to eliminate unlikely cross-ring cleavages.

Topic 2. We have an essential need for…..

We all face similar challenges in our glycomics efforts. A major one relates to quantification of glycans in complex mixtures. For most of the high-resolution, high-sensitivity approaches (ie: MS-based) currently in use, we are in dire need of appropriate standards. To the extent that we can come-up with a consensus or a list of ranked priorities, perhaps we can stimulate efforts to generate large quantities of synthetic or semi-synthetic standards. Or, perhaps we can identify the best uses for limited amounts of standards that would have the broadest impact. I’m sure we all have a list of dearly needed essentials that could benefit from some outside input.

Topic 3. High priority, breakthrough technologies…

For the most part, I don’t think that we really understand the full limitations of our current glycomics technologies. We know what we see, but we don’t always know what we’re missing. The extent of our ignorance is also dependent on glycan class (N-linked, O-linked, glycosphingolipid). Usually, increases in instrument sensitivity initiate the discovery of new glycans. Placing specific glycans onto specific peptides with high throughput and high sensitivity is a frontier that also cries out for new technological strides. What do we want from the new technologies? Where are the best chances for breakthrough?

Topic 4. High priority, breakthrough opportunities….

By opportunities, I mean biological targets that fit within (or fall outside) the purview of the CFG to “define the paradigms by which glycan binding proteins mediate cell communication.” These targets don’t necessarily have to be areas of personal research interest but could be a revelation that hits while reading outside our areas of comfort. Glycobiology, in general, has certainly benefited by extending into new areas.

As your “subgroup leader/moderator” I welcome all topics of general interest to analytical glycomics and promise not to be so wordy in the future. I hope that we can avoid becoming too balkanized (glycoprotein, glycolipid, GAG, mucinous, etc.) since the problems that limit our progress are probably more common to all of us than specific to our glycans of interest. And finally, I hope we can all find a way to use this network to our advantage and to our enjoyment.