new proteomics publication
misaacs at spam_me_not.student.usyd.edu.au
Fri Jul 13 06:10:17 EST 2001
"Dr. Artem Evdokimov" <eudokima at mail.ncifcrf.gov> wrote in message
news:3B460E6D.B06E0342 at mail.ncifcrf.gov...
> I am glad to hear that not everyone has succumbed to the mindless hype
> of 'crystallomics' 'proteomics' 'hedgehogenomics' and other '-omics'.
> It seems that the gene-jockeys are trying to get into the field of
> proteins... Good luck. Proteins are *not* nearly as nice and fluffy as
> nucleic acids, not at all, no siree. The funding will dry up when these
> people will start rediscovering facts first noted ca 1920-ies. Meanwhile
> people who have real experience in protein purification are already
> worth more than their weight in gold. Whoppee.
What you will find is that the people who have the experience and background
in protein research have the best technology, knowledge & platform to base
their proteomic studies. Those from a genomics background will struggle.
Sure, you may call proteomics "just biochemistry". But then, genomics is
also "just biochemistry". The introduction of the word "proteomics" of
course does not introduce any new amazing technology. But it does give a
good focus and grasp of high-throughput analysis of proteins leading towards
biological discovery. Proteomics has the potential to deliver much more
information than genomics - but is much more difficult. Proteomics is also
made much easier by the work already done in genomics.
If proteomics is all just a hype, then why are there so many large,
successful, high-profile companies pouring support and money into it? Large
& successful companies are usually large and successful for a good reason.
More information about the Proteins