Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BioRevolution t1_j7mb1we wrote

What was your reason behind the sequential entry into the different "omics" technologies: Phenomics makes sense, but why then not then move into Metabolomics or Proteomics that are more established in comparison to transcriptomics?

5

IHaque_Recursion t1_j7mg5db wrote

Might be some personal bias here – I come from a sequencing background before Recursion – but I don’t necessarily think metabolomics or proteomics are more established than transcriptomics (especially in a research context; clinical testing is different!). The past 10-15 years have seen an absolute _explosion_ in the ability to generate (and analyze/interpret) sequencing data at scale. One of our core principles is being able to generate high-dimensional data at scale, and from that perspective, transcriptomics is a great complement to phenomics. Metabolomic and proteomic technologies (whether affinity or MS-based) are still more expensive and smaller scale than what you can achieve by sequencing. That being said, as technology advances and we find the right application areas, we’re interested in exploring what these other readouts can do for us.

10

Linooney t1_j7mszql wrote

As a computational proteomics researcher who works mostly in MS, it feels like there are dozens more transcriptomics colleagues around me per metabolomics/proteomics person lol Though there are definitely exciting developments in high throughput technologies, even at single cell scale, coming up.

2