I have to admit I'm only just now starting to understand the differences between all these plasma proteomics thingamabobs.
Since we've got our hands full with more single cells than we can possibly run, I even missed the absolutely hilariously weird stuff going on with the owners at SEER.
Importantly: I desperately hope all of this summer's drama over ownership hasn't had too terrible of an impact on the great scientists at SEER who are doing great and important stuff. And if it has, and you see a CV from a SEER proteomics scientist, you should probably hire them immediately. There are some amazing people there.
Not familiar? Look it up, I'm a little scared to give you my summary of all the stuff I've read. Lawyers and accountants are expensive. I just deleted it, but you don't need my summary of investors said, CEO said. Though there are some pretty funny plots about how the company stock has performed vs the CEO's salary...the latter wouldn't be considered bad for an NBA player.
But here is the thing that threw me off even though I think people have mentioned it.
Mag-Net appears to get big numbers because it's an EV (extracellular vesicles) enrichment technology. Which is cool and everything. If you're an EV researcher you should be stoked. This stuff looks super smart. But....I'm not an EV researcher.....so...like...do I care?
Which...honestly...I guess is sorta the question about anyt of these technologies. If Aim 4 of basically every grant I'm a high part of is "and then we port this marker to the extremely limited list of FDA/CLIA LCMS instruments for making a LDT or IVD. Can I afford to put a nanoparticle on the front end of it? My hope/guess/approach is that the problem is we can't do discovery, right? But if we go to the completely over the top pain in the butt that is validating an LCMS QQQ assay, then it will see stuff. Right?
I really like the paper above, but it let some things click into my brain so I understand these different technologies a bit better.
No comments:
Post a Comment