EBM Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Duncan, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Hunsucker, S. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Duncan, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Hunsucker, S. W.
Experimental Biology and Medicine 230:808-817 (2005)
© 2005 Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine

SYMPOSIA

Proteomics as a Tool for Clinically Relevant Biomarker Discovery and Validation

Mark W. Duncan*,{dagger},1 and Stephen W. Hunsucker*

* Department of Pediatrics, Section of Pulmonary Medicine, and {dagger} Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Aurora, Colorado 80045

To whom requests for reprints should be addressed at 1 Department of Pediatrics, Section of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Mail Stop 8119, P.O. Box 6511, Aurora, CO 80045. E-mail: Mark.Duncan{at}uchsc.edu

The excitement associated with clinical applications of proteomics was initially focused on its potential to serve as a vehicle for both biomarker discovery and drug discovery and routine clinical sample analysis. Some approaches were thought to be able to "identify" mass spectral characteristics that distinguished between control and disease samples, and thereafter it was believed that the same tool could be employed to screen samples in a high-throughput clinical setting. However, this has been difficult to achieve, and the early promise is yet to be fully realized. While we see an important place for mass spectrometry in drug and biomarker discovery, we believe that alternative strategies will prove more fruitful for routine analysis. Here we discuss the power and versatility of 2D gels and mass spectrometry in the discovery phase of biomarker work but argue that it is better to rely on immunochemical methods for high-throughput validation and routine assay applications.

Key Words: DIGE • difference gel electrophoresis




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
R. T. Netea-Maier, S. W. Hunsucker, B. M. Hoevenaars, S. M. Helmke, P. J. Slootweg, A. R. Hermus, B. R. Haugen, and M. W. Duncan
Discovery and Validation of Protein Abundance Differences between Follicular Thyroid Neoplasms
Cancer Res., March 1, 2008; 68(5): 1572 - 1580.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. Corton, J. I. Botella-Carretero, J. A. Lopez, E. Camafeita, J. L. San Millan, H. F. Escobar-Morreale, and B. Peral
Proteomic analysis of human omental adipose tissue in the polycystic ovary syndrome using two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2008; 23(3): 651 - 661.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Cell. ProteomicsHome page
Q. W. T. Chan, C. G. Howes, and L. J. Foster
Quantitative Comparison of Caste Differences in Honeybee Hemolymph
Mol. Cell. Proteomics, December 1, 2006; 5(12): 2252 - 2262.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine.