Surprised by the title when authors themselves, even in the abstract, note the analysis is of "proteins with significantly altered abundance". Indeed, proteomic analyses are of protein/proteoform abundance changes, not expression, which needs different assays. Surely somebody at NPG knows better?
Wonder how much prices would drop if everyone agreed to boycott purchases from any vendor for, say, a year. Mind you, the folks that get free/bargain basement instruments & in return publish the routine annual '20 more peptides, 20 s faster' papers won't care.
Has this all occurred since the Drop Bears were already outed?!?
Hmmm, local environment and/or isolation methods at play?
Rant on. Like your post about complaining routinely to your gov't rep's (i.e. your 'duty' as a citizen), critical evaluation is the only real way to move science forward regardless of the fact that money talks (i.e. as in...how to get published "in one of the highest IF journals on the planet...".
Funny...if not so depressing.
I've said it before - if taxpayers actually knew how their funding was being used in the university system, notably by senior & mid-level admin, they would demand that premiers not give another cent until this nonsense was cleaned-up. Uni admin is largely a scam.
Maybe....should have not supported the ridiculous NPG process and costs?
...and university senior administrations.
Indeed, anything involving taxpayers' funds seems up-for-grabs & abuse.
Used that one to open a review paper a few years back:
Proteomes Are of Proteoforms: Embracing the Complexity.
Proteomes 2021, 9, 38.
doi.org/10.3390/prot...
Humour helps ease the pain.........
Regrettably, at both the research level & how funding is used, this is far more insidious than 'might'.
Is there a broad and generalized misunderstanding of what proteomes actually are...or is it just easy to make money off throwing some grossly overpriced 'kits' at outdated thinking?
Perhaps it begins with how effective your up-front resolution of proteoforms actually is?
How was the intact GYPA1:p obtained?
Exactly! You can estimate whatever until you're blue in the face, but it's only what can be experimentally validated that counts. That means genuinely rigorous analysis of native samples not 'theoretical' samples.
Absolutely. 'Wonder' is what keeps the science fresh and forward-looking rather than stale & repetitive. I would assume the same for things like coding.
How many replicates of each type of analysis are needed to establish whether the nucleic acid sequencing is wrong/right or if it is the amino acid sequencing?
Interpretation is only as good as the accuracy.
...and unless you actually (are able to) analyze broadly for proteoforms across the proteome, you probably will still only have a cartoon understanding of the molecular mechanism/physiology at the canonical sequence level.
Really makes one ask how much knowledge has actually been gleaned from all of that over the last couple of decades or so? Yet, indeed, some have gotten rich, both financially & otherwise.
I agree but can already hear my former faculty colleagues complaining that they are either too busy to do this and/or the class size is too large, or simply that 'students will complain and I don't want to deal with that'.
Possibly even worse? Starts in HS already as so many are simply pushed through with inflated grades. Then this is repeated in undergrad programs because 'more heads = more money'. If completely unchecked into grad school (&, no, I do not mean complete bans) then what does the future in fact hold?
I think there is a lot of 'over-compensation' in the field.
Yeah - was recently watching something & suddenly I hear Bauhaus - the opening of Bela Lugosi's Dead! That grabbed my attention as, 40+ years after release, I figured nobody would use that in a current show. It was a perfect fit to the mood though.
I would suggest the biggest problem is not doing the highest possible resolution of intact species at the front-end & then using the power of your preferred MS instrumentation/process for sequencing/identification. Despite knowing the complexity of proteomes the field went with the shotgun approach.
Some VPs work, in theory. None work seriously in practice as actual work is done by a seemingly every expanding staff. Most admin, like VPs, take credit for things that 'worked' but pass responsibility/blame to underlings when they don't. In my int'l experience, most senior admin is a scam.
The key message really is "...all our universities are overstaffed at the mid-though-senior admin levels" as well as certain offices. If taxpayers knew what was being done with their funding they would be yelling at every premier & the PM not to give another cent until this nonsense is cleaned up.
Wrong?
Have the provided the proteoform data? Oh, wait............
I was immediately looking into the background of the photo to see if Rod Serling was somewhere in a corner smoking a cigarette.
As someone basically said the other day: 'why does anyone put up with this anymore'? Get your data out to the rest of us in other journals and move on.....and that applies broadly to these so-called publishing 'powerhouses'.
Yes, the AI-generated images are!
Why do these look like 1950's style sci-fi movie posters??
These 'influencers' and 'wellness gurus' will say and do anything for a buck....or more often, far too many bucks. This market has always been full of con artists, too often using academic credentials and/or supposed 'scientific data', to simply rip-off the desperate and/or uninformed.