Jerry Bromenshenk wrote:

>  Finally, some folks have adopted short cut terminology of calling
>  genomics and proteomics the Omics - bit cute for my taste.  But in
>  the field of Informatics, you will see references made to omics. 1.
>  Genes get lots of press, but it's the  proteins (step 2) that perform
>  most life functions and even  make up the majority of cellular
>  structures.
>
>  There's not been much discussion on this list about Proteomics, but
>  this is where the big pharmaceutical companies are looking for  new
>  treatments.  It is still hard to replace or 'fix' a  gene.   Genes
>  regulate the production of proteins, and  that's where many more
>  opportunities exist, since proteins can turn  things on and off, etc.
>  Studying proteomics (protein  expression and function) promises to
>  help elucidate the molecular basis of  health and disease.
>

... but you can't say that proteomics is the answer, and genomics isn't (and
by that, I'm not saying that genomics is the answer, and proteomics isnt). I
think all of the "-omics" need to be taken together, rather than
isolation. Also, as I'm sure you know already, the "-omics" fields of
research include not only genomics and proteomics; It more refers to any
global study of biomolecules or consitients in a
cell/tissue/organism/substance of study - so it includes proteomics,
genomics, transcriptomics, glycomics, metabolomics and even metagenomics
of populations... there's more "-omics" terms coined all the time. The
reason I highlight that point is this: These studies in isolation are a
problem with a lot of research at the moment, I think... The genomics
folks do their thing, the proteomics folks do their thing, the
transcriptomcis folks do their thing. We're never going to understand it
all until we look at them all combined... it's just a pretty hard job to
do that all at once. That's not to criticise the work alone, or the
groups doing it. I don't think we're at a point now where we can take it
all into consideration at the same time (not all that well, anyway).

>
>  The price per test is a bit pricey at $250 sample, but the
>  information obtained is somewhat similar to going to your doctor for
>  a  checkup and having just about every lab test known conducted at
>  one time.
>

I'd be interested to know what information you get from your bee
proteomics. I'm a little skeptical about the phrase "the information
obtained is somewhat similar to going to your doctor for a  checkup and
having just about every lab test known conducted at one time", unless
you're using that fairly loosely, or unless the testing system with bees
is substantially different from other systems (which is quite likely...
bees are certainly very far from my field of expertise!)

Cheers,

Scott.

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************