Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Functional Proteomics pp 1–40Cite as

Making the Case for Functional Proteomics

  • Protocol
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 1871))

Abstract

“Making the Case for Functional Proteomics” first differentiates the Functional Proteome from the products of genetic protein expression. Qualitatively, the prevalence of posttranslational modifications (PTMs) virtually insures that individual, functional proteins do not equate to their genetic expression counterparts. Quantitatively, considering the frequency of PTMs and a conservative estimate of the number of functional entities arising from protein interactions, the size of the Functional Proteome exceeds that of the human genome by at least two orders of magnitude. The human genome does not, cannot, map the Functional Proteome. Further, the collective genome of the human microbiome dwarfs the human genome. With these facts established, “Making the Case…” proceeds to examine Functional Proteomics (of which both “gene expression” and “epigenetics” are but parts of a larger whole) within the context of Systems Biology, concluding that functionally related networks comprise the dominant motif for biological activity. Creating just such a network focus is essential in not only expanding basic knowledge but also in applying that knowledge in the pragmatic efforts of drug and biomarker development. Outlines for development of drugs and biomarkers, as well as the realization of precision medicine, within a functional proteomics-based, network motif are provided. The chapter proceeds to asses both the knowledge base and the tools to fully embrace Functional Proteomics. Given the decades-long infatuation with the reductionism of genomics, it is not surprising that both the proteomics knowledge base and tools are assessed as poor to fair. However, even a minor shift in research funding and a renewed challenge to methods developers will rapidly improve the current situation. Adoption of the included “Roadmap” will realistically make the twenty-first century the century of a long-awaited revolution in biology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Protocol
USD   49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Springer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more

References

  1. Pundir S, Martin M, O’Donovan C (2017) UniProt protein knowledgebase. Methods Mol Biol 1558:41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6783-4_2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Savage N (2015) Proteomics: high-protein research. Nature 527:S6. https://doi.org/10.1038/527S6a

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pennisi E (2012) ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA. Science 337(6099):1159–1161. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.337.6099.1159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ezkurdia I, Juan D, Rodriguez JM, Frankish A, Diekhans M, Harrow J, Vazquez J, Valencia A, Tress ML (2014) Multiple evidence strands suggest that there may be as few as 19 000 human protein-coding genes. Hum Mol Genet 23(22):5866–5878

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ponomarenko EA, Poverennaya EV, Ilgisonis EV, Pyatnitskiy MA, Kopylov AT, Zgoda VG, Lisitsa AV, Archakov AI (2016) The size of the human proteome: the width and depth. Int J Anal Chem 2016:7436849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Collins FS (2006) The language of god. Francis S. Collins on unveiling the human genome. Free Press, New York, p 1–3

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ball P (2010) Bursting the genomics bubble. Nature. https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/news.2010.145.html. https://doi.org/10.1038/news.2010.145

  8. Gisler M (2010) The rise and fall of the human genome project. MIT Technology Review

    Google Scholar 

  9. Weston AD, Hood L (2004) Systems biology, proteomics, and the future of health care: toward predictive, preventative, and personalized medicine. J Proteome Res 3:179–196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Butcher EC, Berg EL, Kunkel EJ (2004) Systems biology in drug discovery. Nat Biotechnol 22:1253–1259. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Perkins RC. Paul Kenis, Deborah Berthhold & Sarah-Ellen Leonard, University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign; Jonathan Lee, recently of Eli Lily; and Ray Perkins, New Liberty Proteomics

    Google Scholar 

  12. Strimbu K, Tavel JA (2010) What are biomarkers? Curr Opin HIV AIDS 5(6):463–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Berger D (1999) A brief history of medical diagnosis and the birth of the clinical laboratory. MLO Med Lab Obs 31(7). 28–30, 32, 34–40

    Google Scholar 

  14. FDA (2018.) In vitro diagnostics. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/InVitroDiagnostics/default.htm

  15. Kuruc M (2017) Stroma liquid biopsy—biomarkers of the dysregulation of the serum proteome in cancer First presented at NJ cancer Retreat, May 25, 2017 New Brunswick, NJ USA. https://www.biotechsupportgroup.com/v/vspfiles/templates/257/pdf/NJ%20Cancer%20Retreat%20Stroma%20Liquid%20Biopsy%20Poster.pdf

  16. Lowe D (2016) In the pipeline: precision oncology isn’t quite there yet Science Translational Medicine weblog, Lowe D (2016). http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/09/12/precision-oncology-isnt-quite-there-yet

  17. Gigerenzer G (2014) Risk savvy. Penguin Group, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  18. Booth B, Zemmel R (2004) Opinion: prospects for productivity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:451–456. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1384

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Scannell JW, Blanckley A, Boldon H, Warrington B (2012) Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat Rev Drug Discov 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3681

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lawrence MS, Stoianov P, Polak P, Kryukov GV, Cibulskis K, Sivachenko A, Carter SL et al (2013) Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature 499. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Swinney D (2013) Phenotypic vs. target-based drug discovery for first-in-class medicines. Clin Pharmacol Ther 93(4):299–301

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Moffat JG, Vincent F, Lee JA, Eder J, Prunotto M (2017) Opportunities and challenges in phenotypic drug discovery: an industry perspective. Nat Rev Drug Discov 16:531–543. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bray M-A, Singh S, Han H, Davis CT, Borgeson B, Hartland C, Kost-Alimova M, Gustafsdottir SM, Gibson CC, Carpenter AE (2016) Cell painting, a high-content image-based assay for morphological profiling using multiplexed fluorescent dyes. Nat Protoc 11:1757–1774. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2016.105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Avior Y, Sagi I, Benvenisty N (2016) Pluripotent stem cells in disease modelling and drug discovery. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 17. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2015.27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Esch EW, Bahinski A, Huh D (2015) Organs-on-chips at the frontiers of drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd4539

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Boran AD, Ivengar R (2010) Systems approaches to polypharmacology and drug discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 13(3):297–309

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ashley EA (2016) Towards precision medicine. Nat Rev Genet 17. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bandolier (2007) The Oxford league table of analgesic efficacy. http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/painpag/Acutrev/Analgesics/lftab.html

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schork NJ (2015) Personalized medicine: time for one-person trials. Nature 520:609–611. https://doi.org/10.1038/520609a

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Prasad V (2016) Perspective: the precision-oncology illusion. Nat Biotechnol 537(S63). https://doi.org/10.1038/537S63a

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Brock A, Huang S (2017) Precision oncology: between vaguely right and precisely wrong. Cancer Res. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0448

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. HUPO (2016) The human proteome project. https://hupo.org/human-proteome-project

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang Y, Fonslow BR, Shan B, Baek M-C, Yates JR (2013) Protein analysis by shotgun/bottom-up proteomics. Chem Rev 113(4):2343–2394. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr3003533

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Catherman AD, Skinner OS, Kelleher NL (2014) Top down proteomics: facts and perspectives. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 445(4):683–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.02.041

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Solier C, Langen H (2014) Antibody-based proteomics and biomarker research—current status and limitations. Proteomics 14(6):774–783. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201300334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wasinger VC, Zeng M, Yau Y (2013) Current status and advances in quantitative proteomic mass spectrometry. Int J Proteomics 2013:180605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wolf-Yadlin A, Hautaniemi S, Lauffenbuger DA, White FM (2007) Multiple reaction monitoring for robust quantitative proteomic analysis of cellular signaling networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(14):5860–5865. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608638104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28(1):235–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang H, Wang J (2017) How cryo-electron microscopy and X-ray crystallography complement each other. Protein Sci 26(1):32–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.3022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. MSU 900 MHz NMR sample requirements. https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/facilities/nmr/900mhz/MCSB_NMR_sample.html

  41. Claxton DP, Kazmier K, Mishra S, Mchaourab HS (2015) Navigating membrane protein structure, dynamics, and energy landscapes using spin labeling and EPR spectroscopy. Methods Enzymol 564:349–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.mie.2015.07.026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Yang Y, Ramelot TA, McCarrick RM, Ni S, Feldmann EA et al (2010) Combining NMR and EPR methods for Homodimer protein structure determination. J Am Chem Soc 132(34). https://doi.org/10.1021/ja105080h

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Stadler C, Rexhepaj E, Singan VR, Murphy RF, Pepperkok R, Uhlén M, Simpson JC, Lundberg E (2013) Immunofluorescence and fluorescent-protein tagging show high correlation for protein localization in mammalian cells. Nat Methods 10:315–323. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. von Mering C, Krause R, Snel B, Cornell M, Oliver SG, Fields S, Bork P (2002) Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein–protein interactions. Nat Biotechnol 417:399–403

    Google Scholar 

  45. Braun P, Tasan M, Dreze M, Barrios-Rodiles M, Lemmens I, Yu H, Sahalie JM, Murray RR, Roncari L, A-Sd S, Venkatesan K, Rual J-F, Cusick ME, Pawson T, Hill DE, Tavernier J, Wrana JL, Roth FP, Vidal M (2009) An experimentally derived confidence score for binary protein-protein interactions. Nat Methods 6(1):91–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1281

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rao VS, Srinivas K, Sujini GN, Kumar GNS (2014) Protein-protein interaction detection: methods and analysis. Int J Proteomics 2014:12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/147648

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Klare J (2013) Site-directed spin labeling EPR spectroscopy in protein research. Biol Chem 394(10):1281–1300. https://doi.org/10.1515/hsz-2013-0155J

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New Liberty Proteomics Corporation, New Liberty, KY, USA

    Ray C. Perkins

Authors
  1. Ray C. Perkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ray C. Perkins .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Array Bridge Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA

    Xing Wang

  2. Biotech Support Group LLC, Monmouth Junction, NJ, USA

    Matthew Kuruc

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this protocol

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this protocol

Perkins, R.C. (2019). Making the Case for Functional Proteomics. In: Wang, X., Kuruc, M. (eds) Functional Proteomics. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1871. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8814-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8814-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-8813-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-8814-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation