The Human Genome Bubble
17/03/10 11:44 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 19:05.
I can't help but conclude that the massive investment of governments into sequencing the human genome was actually a great hindrance to the biotech industry, which has not really recovered since the draft human genome sequence was first reported. An enormous amount of private capital was pumped into biotech companies like Celera, whose values were pretty much wiped out with the release of the DNA sequence data. As a consequence, private investors have been reluctant ever since to invest in companies that might translate this information into better diagnostic tools and therapeutics.
It's been about a decade since we learned about the primary structures of most of the human proteins. Yet there continues to be wide government support for sequencing the genomes of more and more species and more members within species, but relatively little demonstrated support from the same agencies for better understanding of the proteins encoded by the human genome and the genomes other organisms that have already been sequenced.
It has been argued that the huge investment into genome-specific research activities has dramatically reduced the costs of genome sequencing so that $1000 genome-wide analyses are not too far away. However, there are so many genomes, sequenced at costs of hundreds of millions of dollars, which have already overwhelmed the capacity of researchers with the present support to make sense of this tide wave of data.
At Kinexus, we have been trying to track the extent of post-translational modification of proteins, which is necessary to confer full functionality to proteins. In our PhosphoNET database (www.phosphoNET.ca) we have documented about 75,000 phosphorylation sites, but we believe the actual number is closer to 500,000. We have found that evolutionary analysis of the genomes of diverse organisms can yield insights into which phosphorylation sites might be particularly important based on their conservation. The available genomic data is sufficient for this purpose. It is frustrating that only a few laboratories world-wide have been provided the resources to conduct limited studies of protein phosphorylation by tandem mass spectrometry, when this is the next logical step after identifying all of the human proteins. It makes a lot more sense to divert more funding into basic research that builds on the fruits of our genomics investment rather than propagate even more of the same kind of data. Only in this way can truly practical benefits from the genomics investment come to pass.
Link to the original blog post
I can't help but conclude that the massive investment of governments into sequencing the human genome was actually a great hindrance to the biotech industry, which has not really recovered since the draft human genome sequence was first reported. An enormous amount of private capital was pumped into biotech companies like Celera, whose values were pretty much wiped out with the release of the DNA sequence data. As a consequence, private investors have been reluctant ever since to invest in companies that might translate this information into better diagnostic tools and therapeutics.
It's been about a decade since we learned about the primary structures of most of the human proteins. Yet there continues to be wide government support for sequencing the genomes of more and more species and more members within species, but relatively little demonstrated support from the same agencies for better understanding of the proteins encoded by the human genome and the genomes other organisms that have already been sequenced.
It has been argued that the huge investment into genome-specific research activities has dramatically reduced the costs of genome sequencing so that $1000 genome-wide analyses are not too far away. However, there are so many genomes, sequenced at costs of hundreds of millions of dollars, which have already overwhelmed the capacity of researchers with the present support to make sense of this tide wave of data.
At Kinexus, we have been trying to track the extent of post-translational modification of proteins, which is necessary to confer full functionality to proteins. In our PhosphoNET database (www.phosphoNET.ca) we have documented about 75,000 phosphorylation sites, but we believe the actual number is closer to 500,000. We have found that evolutionary analysis of the genomes of diverse organisms can yield insights into which phosphorylation sites might be particularly important based on their conservation. The available genomic data is sufficient for this purpose. It is frustrating that only a few laboratories world-wide have been provided the resources to conduct limited studies of protein phosphorylation by tandem mass spectrometry, when this is the next logical step after identifying all of the human proteins. It makes a lot more sense to divert more funding into basic research that builds on the fruits of our genomics investment rather than propagate even more of the same kind of data. Only in this way can truly practical benefits from the genomics investment come to pass.
Link to the original blog post