Controversies in Proteomics
This article was originally published in Start Up
Executive Summary
A Lancet paper published two years ago detailing a promising but highly novel approach to detecting ovarian cancer, one of the deadliest cancers, continues to be the subject of great controversy in cancer circles. The test uses proteomic pattern profiling to detect the cancer, with a more than 95% accuracy in early studies, but no one knows what the patterns are made of. The NCI and two large reference labs are pushing ahead to get the test into the clinic, on the premise that as long as it is so good at detecting cancer, a lack of understanding of the underlying biochemistry isn't an insurmountable hurdle to acceptance.
You may also be interested in...
Molecular Dx as a Hot Spot
Although it's still a small portion of the $30-plus billion diagnostic services and test supplies business, molecular diagnostics is on disproportionately rapid growth curve. Some estimate its revenue growth at 25% a year compared to the overall industry average of 3-5%. Reimbursement is improving and robust new tests are emerging, slowly but steadily.
Molecular Dx as a Hot Spot
Although it's still a small portion of the $30-plus billion diagnostic services and test supplies business, molecular diagnostics is on disproportionately rapid growth curve. Some estimate its revenue growth at 25% a year compared to the overall industry average of 3-5%. Reimbursement is improving and robust new tests are emerging, slowly but steadily.
Predicant Biosciences Inc.
Among proteomics experts, however, a split has emerged between those who believe protein profiling patterns, rather than proteins themselves, are important indicators of disease, and those who believe that the proteins need to be identified before they can be useful clinically. Predicant Biosciences is taking the side of the former group, and, supported by a top-notch group of scientists and venture capitalists, is developing an integrated system it hopes will move the field forward.