The dismal patchwork of fragmented research on disease-associated biomarkers should be replaced by a coordinated 'big science' approach, argues George Poste.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
PCDHGB7 hypermethylation-based Cervical cancer Methylation (CerMe) detection for the triage of high-risk human papillomavirus-positive women: a prospective cohort study
BMC Medicine Open Access 05 February 2024
-
Re-evaluation of publicly available gene-expression databases using machine-learning yields a maximum prognostic power in breast cancer
Scientific Reports Open Access 05 October 2023
-
Research progress on the role of extracellular vesicles in neurodegenerative diseases
Translational Neurodegeneration Open Access 11 September 2023
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Auffray, C., Chen, Z. & Hood, L. Genome Med. 1, 2 (2009).
Shadt, E. E. Nature 461, 218–223 (2009).
Davis, J. C. et al. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 279–286 (2009).
Vaught, J. Research & Policy Initiatives in NCI's Office of Biorepositories & Biospecimen Research (Office of Biorepositories & Biospecimen Research, 2009); available at http://go.nature.com/61yq9m
Ransohoff, D. F. & Gourlay, M. L. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 698–704 (2010).
Moore, H. M. et al. Cancer Res. 69, 6770–6772 (2009).
Biesecker, L. G. et al. Genome Res. 19, 1665–1674 (2009).
Javitt, G. Nature 466, 817–818 (2010).
Meckley, L. M. & Neumann, P. J. Health Policy 94, 91–100 (2010).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
George Poste is a member of the Board of Directors at Caris Life Sciences, a diagnostics company.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Poste, G. Bring on the biomarkers. Nature 469, 156–157 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/469156a
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/469156a
This article is cited by
-
PCDHGB7 hypermethylation-based Cervical cancer Methylation (CerMe) detection for the triage of high-risk human papillomavirus-positive women: a prospective cohort study
BMC Medicine (2024)
-
Research progress on the role of extracellular vesicles in neurodegenerative diseases
Translational Neurodegeneration (2023)
-
Statistical methods and resources for biomarker discovery using metabolomics
BMC Bioinformatics (2023)
-
Integrating automated liquid handling in the separation workflow of extracellular vesicles enhances specificity and reproducibility
Journal of Nanobiotechnology (2023)
-
Re-evaluation of publicly available gene-expression databases using machine-learning yields a maximum prognostic power in breast cancer
Scientific Reports (2023)
Nora Smith
It is mentioned twice that around 100 biomarkers have been approved for routine clinical use. Yet there is no reference listed. Where is this information coming from?
Phillip Stafford
Nora – George, more than most, is qualified to estimate the number of biomarkers in clinical use because of his relevant expertise and his position at Caris Diagnostics. It's almost impossible to document clinically relevant biomarkers because the FDA provides such a fragmented, out-of-date, and incomplete picture. You almost have to estimate them empirically.