As a former chairman of the Protein Sequence Research Group, I feel compelled
to contribute to this discussion of the group's potential demise. I also must
address some misconceptions about the group.
I strongly support the continued existence of the Protein Analysis Research
Group (PARG). The Executive Board has lofty goals to do more complex,
research-oriented studies. This is progressive and may be good for the ABRF,
but it could also be done by a group that is separate from the PARG. All of us
on the Research Groups are volunteers. We are spread across the continents,
and it is difficult enough for us to find the time to conduct even a reasonably
simple study each year, let alone do an in-depth research investigation as
suggested by the EB.
For those of you unfamiliar with the PARG, the recent studies are available on
the ABRF website at
http://www.abrf.org/ABRF/ResearchCommittees/protseqrescomm.html. Although self
evaluation has always been a component of the studies, there are many other
associated goals. These include education (our previous study was on the
analysis of a phosphorylated peptide), determination of the typical capabilites
and state-of-the-art (to counter the outrageous claims made by some
investigators and manufacturers), and identification of what instrumentation
and methods are used to address a particular problem.
The PARG was originally called the Protein Sequence Research Committee, renamed
the Protein Sequence Research Group, and now called the Protein Analysis
Research Group. During its previous thirteen years of annual studies, its
mission remained the same; however, the group altered its focus and membership
to reflect the increasing use of mass spectrometry for protein sequence
determination, while continuing to devise studies amenable to Edman
sequencing.
Now defunct groups such as the Mass Spectrometry Research Group or the Protein
Identification Research Group were not folded into the PARG, although
considerable overlap had developed as analysis technologies evolved. No group
need exist forever; however, the PARG has always been very active, and has had
no lack of ideas for new ways to challenge our membership.
For the ABRF-00SEQ study, 46 labs returned results by the deadline. This
number has been fairly typical for PARG studies, although there were a greater
number of responses (around 90 I recall) to several earlier studies. Notably,
for the ABRF-00SEQ study, 39% of the responders had not participated the
previous year. Either we are attracting new investigators to the studies, or
groups are not analyzing the sample every year. After all, it does take one's
time and money to do the analysis, and we have always been appreciative of
those who do analyze the sample and return the data. Certainly, there are also
groups that analyzed the sample, but didn't bother to submit results.
Let me reiterate my support for the continued existence of the PARG. Based
upon the outpouring of support for the PARG, I hope that the EB will reconsider
its decision to dissolve the group. As evidenced by the mail to this
newsgroup, many of us desire a study such as the PARG has proposed. Therefore,
I suggest that they proceed now with the study, even though it is unlikely that
results will be ready for presentation by the time of the ABRF 2001 meeting.
The members of the group have expended much volunteer effort to design the
study, and it is unfair to terminate their plans.
Although I disagree with the EB on this issue, I also want to voice my
appreciation for their efforts and good intentions. I am concerned that
issues such as this are distressing and discouraging to those who are
participating or may participate on research groups and committees. My three
years on the Protein Sequence Analysis Group were educational and rewarding,
and also allowed me to develop friendships with leaders in the field. I would
recommend the experience to anyone.
Gary Davis
Senior Research Scientist
Bayer Corp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 09:18:08 EST