Dilution of undesired compound profiles

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 by hinrich

Dilution of undesired profiles

Last year I discussed the potential use of having more than one medicine working on the same target. As different structures will have different polypharmacology (where else can they bind besides the desired target?), we could focus on those side effects and define which molecule could best be tolerated by a patient (Personalized medicine for side activities)

Along these lines is a slightly different approach: instead of matching a single medicine with a minimal undesired profile we could attempt to administer two compounds working on the same target at smaller doses for each. Conceptually this would result in a comparable modulation of the target while diluting the undesired profiles of both compounds.

Furthermore, the approach would require measures for compound differentiation. Here we would want to ensure that the polypharmacology of the two compounds are clearly different. Furthermore, it would also require that multiple compounds are developed and approved for a given target.

Posted in Science

Dead technology

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011 by hinrich

Seth Godin's blog

I have just seen a blog post by Seth Godin with the title "Bring me stuff that's dead, please". It reminded me a lot about the technology hypes that we are confronted with in the area of molecular profiling.

In analogy you could state: "RTqPCR is dead. Microarrays is dead. Sanger sequencing is dead". And indeed, the curiosity factor has been satisfied for these technologies in a similar way as they have been for the likes of RSS, blogs, or the web.

I particularly like his statement: "Only when an innovation is dead can the real work begin". For me it means: now we know how the technology works. We know how to run the right experiments to obtain useful data. The technology has matured to a scientific tool. Let's use it to create scientific insights.

It is the scientific knowledge we are creating in a sound and reproducible manner - not, how we create it. Technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Seth closes his blog post with the comment: "The drive-by technorati are well-informed, curious and always probing. They're also hiding... hiding from the real work of creating work that matters, connections with impact and art that lasts. I love to hear about the next big thing, but I'm far more interested in what you're doing with the old big thing."

I could not agree more.

You can find the complete blog post of Seth Godin here.

Posted in Molecular Profiling