Are you Amanda E Starr?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)11.39 Total impact

  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We have witnessed tremendous growth in proteomics. In the early days of proteomics, we were in awe when individual proteins were identified using mass spectrometry data. Now, thousands of proteins can be routinely identified and quantified using the latest proteomic technologies. These achievements are linked to improvements in analytical technologies whose applications have led to advancement in understanding of biological processes. The mapping of protein-protein interactions in human1 and other species, as well as efforts to systematically map post-translational modifications (PTMs: PhosphoSitePlus reports over 290,000 experimental PTMs2) have changed the way we approach biological questions. Moreover, the applications of technologies to study the temporal dynamic of these interactions and PTMs using mass spectrometry are invaluable resources to the biological community. At the same time, lessons have been learned in proteomics from some of its growing pains. The first lesson was that new technical developments, although exciting, might not be on their own sufficient for discovery from complex samples such as serum and plasma. For example, one can remember the hype around Surface Enhanced Laser Desorption-Ionization (SELDI) mass spectrometry3, which from the early to mid 2000s was going to solve the biomarker conundrum; however, because of issues of reproducibility and sample preparation it has been mired in controversy. At its peak in 2006 SELDI technology was utilized in 24% of biomarker mass spectrometry papers whereas in 2012 it was represented in only 6%. It was followed by a series of other technologies that have also underperformed for the discovery of true biomarkers. The mismatch between proteomic technologies and biomarker discovery has been a major disappointment. The second lesson was that technical difficulties are not a reason to take biological shortcuts, especially if biological conclusions are to be derived from the experiment. Technical difficulties in proteomics have led to numerous papers based solely on one biological sample, with no or insufficient controls. These articles often inferred biological conclusions that were not supported. Fortunately, recent technology improvements allow extensive and detailed proteomics studies within a few days to a few weeks. As well, people are much more aware of sample complexity and the need to further improve technologies. In the last few years we have seen a decrease in the number of journals that accept proteomic-based papers based on a single biological sample (n=1). As well, the number of proteomic papers that include orthogonal validation methods, such as Western blotting and microscopy, has increased. Clearly, continuing technological developments remain essential for proteomics. Excitingly, the number and quality of applications has increased drastically in the last few years. Here, we will review some of technologies and applications in the field of proteomics since our last review in 2011.
    Analytical Chemistry 11/2013; · 5.70 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study of proteins is one of the most challenging tasks in analytical chemistry. The initial protein research focused on developing techniques that could separate and identify the primary sequence (or parts) of a protein.
    Analytical Chemistry 11/2011; 84(2):720-34. · 5.70 Impact Factor