Published online Dec 10, 2015. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v6.i6.184
Peer-review started: May 30, 2015
First decision: August 14, 2015
Revised: September 2, 2015
Accepted: November 3, 2015
Article in press: November 4, 2015
Published online: December 10, 2015
There is currently a split within the cancer research community between traditional molecular biological hypothesis-driven and the more recent “omic” forms or research. While the molecular biological approach employs the tried and true single alteration-single response formulations of experimentation, the omic employs broad-based assay or sample collection approaches that generate large volumes of data. How to integrate the benefits of these two approaches in an efficient and productive fashion remains an outstanding issue. Ideally, one would merge the understandability, exactness, simplicity, and testability of the molecular biological approach, with the larger amounts of data, simultaneous consideration of multiple alterations, consideration of genes both of known interest along with the novel, cross-sample comparisons among cell lines and patient samples, and consideration of directed questions while simultaneously gaining exposure to the novel provided by the omic approach. While at the current time integration of the two disciplines remains problematic, attempts to do so are ongoing, and will be necessary for the understanding of the large cell line screens including the Developmental Therapeutics Program’s NCI-60, the Broad Institute’s Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia, and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute’s Cancer Genome Project, as well as the the Cancer Genome Atlas clinical samples project. Going forward there is significant benefit to be had from the integration of the molecular biological and the omic forms or research, with the desired goal being improved translational understanding and application.
Core tip: This editorial describes the current split in approach, required expertise, and interpretation between the traditional molecular biological field, and the more recent “omic” approaches to cancer biology and pharmacology. The advantages and limitations of each of these disciplines are discussed and contrasted, highlighting their opposing approaches and mentalities. The necessity of their efficient integration for the purpose of interpreting both cell line and clinical sample data is argued, especially when trying to project translationally into the clinic.