4.8 Article

Recommendations for Biomarker Identification and Qualification in Clinical Proteomics

Journal

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
Volume 2, Issue 46, Pages -

Publisher

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001249

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Eu-roKUP COST-Action [BM0702]
  2. European Community [LSHM-CT-2006-037093, HEALTH-F2-2009-241544]
  3. British Heart Foundation [BHF RG/07/005/23633]
  4. NIH [DK075868, DK078244, DK082753, DK083663, DK080301]
  5. Agence Nationale pour la Recherche [ANR-07-PHYSIO-004-01]
  6. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale Grands Equipements pour la Recherche Biomedicale
  7. Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01GR0807]
  8. NCI [CA 128427]
  9. Korean WCU [R31-2008-000-10086-0]
  10. NIH/NCI CA [CA085067]
  11. [CPER2007-2013]
  12. [201333]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical proteomics has yielded some early positive results-the identification of potential disease biomarkers-indicating the promise for this analytical approach to improve the current state of the art in clinical practice. However, the inability to verify some candidate molecules in subsequent studies has led to skepticism among many clinicians and regulatory bodies, and it has become evident that commonly encountered shortcomings in fundamental aspects of experimental design mainly during biomarker discovery must be addressed in order to provide robust data. In this Perspective, we assert that successful studies generally use suitable statistical approaches for biomarker definition and confirm results in independent test sets; in addition, we describe a brief set of practical and feasible recommendations that we have developed for investigators to properly identify and qualify proteomic biomarkers, which could also be used as reporting requirements. Such recommendations should help put proteomic biomarker discovery on the solid ground needed for turning the old promise into a new reality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available