Advertisement

Journal of Neural Transmission

, Volume 124, Issue 1, pp 25–32 | Cite as

Personalized medicine beyond genomics: alternative futures in big data—proteomics, environtome and the social proteome

  • Vural Özdemir
  • Edward S. Dove
  • Ulvi K. Gürsoy
  • Semra Şardaş
  • Arif Yıldırım
  • Şenay Görücü Yılmaz
  • İ. Ömer Barlas
  • Kıvanç Güngör
  • Alper Mete
  • Sanjeeva Srivastava
Translational Neurosciences - Review Article

Abstract

No field in science and medicine today remains untouched by Big Data, and psychiatry is no exception. Proteomics is a Big Data technology and a next generation biomarker, supporting novel system diagnostics and therapeutics in psychiatry. Proteomics technology is, in fact, much older than genomics and dates to the 1970s, well before the launch of the international Human Genome Project. While the genome has long been framed as the master or “elite” executive molecule in cell biology, the proteome by contrast is humble. Yet the proteome is critical for life—it ensures the daily functioning of cells and whole organisms. In short, proteins are the blue-collar workers of biology, the down-to-earth molecules that we cannot live without. Since 2010, proteomics has found renewed meaning and international attention with the launch of the Human Proteome Project and the growing interest in Big Data technologies such as proteomics. This article presents an interdisciplinary technology foresight analysis and conceptualizes the terms “environtome” and “social proteome”. We define “environtome” as the entire complement of elements external to the human host, from microbiome, ambient temperature and weather conditions to government innovation policies, stock market dynamics, human values, political power and social norms that collectively shape the human host spatially and temporally. The “social proteome” is the subset of the environtome that influences the transition of proteomics technology to innovative applications in society. The social proteome encompasses, for example, new reimbursement schemes and business innovation models for proteomics diagnostics that depart from the “once-a-life-time” genotypic tests and the anticipated hype attendant to context and time sensitive proteomics tests. Building on the “nesting principle” for governance of complex systems as discussed by Elinor Ostrom, we propose here a 3-tiered organizational architecture for Big Data science such as proteomics. The proposed nested governance structure is comprised of (a) scientists, (b) ethicists, and (c) scholars in the nascent field of “ethics-of-ethics”, and aims to cultivate a robust social proteome for personalized medicine. Ostrom often noted that such nested governance designs offer assurance that political power embedded in innovation processes is distributed evenly and is not concentrated disproportionately in a single overbearing stakeholder or person. We agree with this assessment and conclude by underscoring the synergistic value of social and biological proteomes to realize the full potentials of proteomics science for personalized medicine in psychiatry in the present era of Big Data.

Keywords

Precision medicine Big data Proteomics Technology foresight Futures studies Innovation management systems 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Supported by an interdisciplinary career investigator award from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK 2232 Program) to Vural Özdemir. The analysis is independent views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of their affiliated institutions or the funders. The concepts of environtome and social proteome were conceptualized and coined by V.Ö. The authors thank the anonymous peer-reviewers for constructive critique. Edward S. Dove acknowledges the Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award entitled “Confronting the Liminal Spaces of Health Research Regulation”, Award No: WT103360MA, PI: Graeme Laurie.

References

  1. Al Awam K, Haußleiter IS, Dudley E, Donev R, Brüne M, Juckel G, Thome J (2015) Multiplatform metabolome and proteome profiling identifies serum metabolite and protein signatures as prospective biomarkers for schizophrenia. J Neural Transm 122(Suppl 1):S111–S122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson NG, Matheson A, Anderson NL (2001) Back to the future: the human protein index (HPI) and the agenda for post-proteomic biology. Proteomics 1:3–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu P, Wacquant L (1992) Invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Calimlioglu B, Karagoz K, Sevimoglu T, Kilic E, Gov E, Arga KY (2015) Tissue-specific molecular biomarker signatures of type 2 diabetes: an integrative analysis of transcriptomics and protein–protein interaction data. OMICS 19(9):563–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. De Vries R (2004) How can we help? From ‘sociology in’ bioethics to ‘sociology of’ bioethics. J Law Med Ethics 32:279–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Diderot D (1988) Supplément au voyage de Bougainville. Jimack P (trans). Grant & Cutler, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Dimitrakopoulou K, Dimitrakopoulos GN, Sgarbas KN, Bezerianos A (2014) Tamoxifen integromics and personalized medicine: dynamic modular transformations underpinning response to tamoxifen in breast cancer treatment. OMICS 2014 18:15–33Google Scholar
  9. Domschke K, Müller DJ, Serretti A (2015) Personalized therapies in psychiatry: promises, pitfalls and perspectives. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 122(1):1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dove ES, Özdemir V (2014) The epiknowledge of socially responsible innovation. EMBO Rep 15:462–463CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Dove ES, Özdemir V (2015) What role for law, human rights, and bioethics in an age of Big Data, consortia science, and consortia ethics? The importance of trustworthiness. Laws 4(3):515–540. http://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/4/3/515. Accessed 18 Nov 2015
  12. Ghidoni R, Paterlini A, Benussi L (2013) Translational proteomics in Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders. Clin Biochem 46(6):480–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Haffeld J, Siem H (2013) The post-2015 agenda: complexity theory-based governance of the global health system in the era of postgenomics and personalized medicine. Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med 11:309–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Higdon R, Earl RK, Stanberry L, Hudac CM, Montague E, Stewart E, Janko I, Choiniere J, Broomall W, Kolker N, Bernier RA, Kolker E (2015) The promise of multi-omics and clinical data integration to identify and target personalized healthcare approaches in autism spectrum disorders. OMICS 19(4):197–208CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Hogan JM, Higdon R, Kolker E (2006) Experimental standards for high-throughput proteomics. OMICS 10(2):152–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jain A, Rakhi NK, Bagler G (2015) Analysis of food pairing in regional cuisines of India. PLoS ONE 10(10):e0139539CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Jehmlich N, Dinh KH, Gesell-Salazar M, Hammer E, Steil L, Dhople VM, Schurmann C, Holtfreter B, Kocher T, Völker U (2013) Quantitative analysis of the intra- and inter-subject variability of the whole salivary proteome. J Periodontal Res 48(3):392–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasthuri RS, Verneris MR, Ibrahim HN, Jilma B, Nelsestuen GL (2006) Studying multiple protein profiles over time to assess biomarker validity. Expert Rev Proteomics 3(4):455–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. López JL, Lunau J (2012) ELSIfication in Canada: legal modes of reasoning. Sci Cult 21:77–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ma Y, Sun Z, de Matos R, Zhang J, Odunsi K, Lin B (2014) Towards an animal model of ovarian cancer: cataloging chicken blood proteins using combinatorial peptide ligand libraries coupled with shotgun proteomic analysis for translational research. OMICS 18(5):280–297CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. McCarty MF, Barroso-Aranda J, Contreras F (2009) Regular thermal therapy may promote insulin sensitivity while boosting expression of endothelial nitric oxide synthase—effects comparable to those of exercise training. Med Hypotheses 73(1):103–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. McNally R (2005) Sociomics! Using the IssueCrawler to map, monitor and engage with the global proteomics research network. Proteomics 5(12):3010–3016CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mehta SM, Banerjee SM, Chowdhary AS (2015) Postgenomics biomarkers for rabies—the next decade of proteomics. OMICS 19(2):67–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Miles I (2010) The development of technology foresight: a review. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77(9):1448–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ostrom E (1999) Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annu Rev Polit Sci 2:493–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Özdemir V (2014) Personalized medicine across disciplines and without borders. Vural Özdemir speaks to Hannah Wilson, Commissioning Editor. Per Med 11(7):687–691. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4481090/. Accessed 18 Nov 2015
  28. Ozdemir V, Endrenyi L, Aynacıoğlu S, Bragazzi NL, Dandara C, Dove ES et al (2014) Bernard Lerer: recipient of the 2014 inaugural Werner Kalow responsible innovation prize in global omics and personalized medicine (Pacific Rim Association for clinical pharmacogenetics). OMICS 18(4):211–221CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Özdemir V, Faris J, Srivastava S (2015a) Crowdfunding 2.0: the next generation philanthropy. A new approach for philanthropists and citizens to co-fund disruptive innovation in global health. EMBO Rep 16(3):267–271Google Scholar
  30. Özdemir V, Kılıç H, Yıldırım A et al (2015b) A code of ethics for ethicists: what would Pierre Bourdieu say? “Do not misuse social capital in the age of consortia ethics”. Am J Bioethics 15(5):64–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Patel S (2014) Role of proteomics in biomarker discovery: prognosis and diagnosis of neuropsychiatric disorders. Adv Protein Chem Struct Biol 94:39–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pavlidis C, Lanara Z, Balasopoulou A, Nebel JC, Katsila T, Patrinos GP (2015) Meta-analysis of genes in commercially available nutrigenomic tests denotes lack of association with dietary intake and nutrient-related pathologies. OMICS 19(9):512–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Petersen A (2013) From bioethics to a sociology of bio-knowledge. Soc Sci Med 98:264–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ravetz JR (1971) Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Reddy PJ, Ray S, Srivastava S (2015) The quest of the human proteome and the missing proteins: digging deeper. OMICS 19(5):276–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sclove RE (1989) From alchemy to atomic war: Frederick Soddy’s “Technology Assessment” of Atomic Energy, 1900–1915. Sci Technol Human Values 14(2):163–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sokolowska I, Ngounou Wetie AG, Wormwood K, Thome J, Darie CC, Woods AG (2015) The potential of biomarkers in psychiatry: focus on proteomics. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 122(Suppl 1):S9–S18Google Scholar
  38. Taleb NN (2010) The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable, 2nd edn. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Thoreau F, Delvenne P (2012) Have STS fallen into a political void? Depoliticisation and engagement in the case of nanotechnologies. Politica Sociedade 11:205–226Google Scholar
  40. Wood SL, Knowles MA, Thompson D, Selby PJ, Banks RE (2013) Proteomic studies of urinary biomarkers for prostate, bladder and kidney cancers. Nat Rev Urol 10(4):206–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhao F, Chen Y, Ge S, Yu X, Shao S, Black M, Wang Y, Zhang J, Song M, Wang W (2014) A quantitative analysis of the mass media coverage of genomics medicine in china: a call for science journalism in the developing world. OMICS 18(4):222–230CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vural Özdemir
    • 1
    • 2
  • Edward S. Dove
    • 3
  • Ulvi K. Gürsoy
    • 4
  • Semra Şardaş
    • 5
  • Arif Yıldırım
    • 6
  • Şenay Görücü Yılmaz
    • 7
  • İ. Ömer Barlas
    • 8
  • Kıvanç Güngör
    • 7
    • 9
  • Alper Mete
    • 9
  • Sanjeeva Srivastava
    • 10
  1. 1.Department of Public Relations, Faculty of Communications, Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, and the Office of the President, International Technology and Innovation PolicyGaziantep UniversityGaziantepTurkey
  2. 2.Amrita School of BiotechnologyAmrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham (Amrita University)KollamIndia
  3. 3.J. Kenyon Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law, School of LawUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  4. 4.Institute of DentistryUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  5. 5.Faculty of PharmacyMarmara UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  6. 6.Department of Cinema-TVNamık Kemal UniversityTekirdağTurkey
  7. 7.Faculty of Health SciencesGaziantep UniversityGaziantepTurkey
  8. 8.Department of Medical Biology and Genetics, Faculty of MedicineMersin UniversityMersinTurkey
  9. 9.Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of MedicineGaziantep University HospitalGaziantepTurkey
  10. 10.Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Proteomics LaboratoryIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations