aspect of their research efforts. Billed as the inaugural workshop of MGPI, the Cambridge gathering wasn’t really the first time mammary gland researchers had come together under the MGPI name. In late 2005, Souchelnytskyi organized a small, invitationonly meeting of 10–15 European breast cancer researchers to gauge interest and to start the ball rolling. Amazingly, many tasks necessary for setting up an initiative were started at that tiny gathering in Uppsala (Sweden). There, the group created four MGPI programs. One of those programs is a researchbased effort that includes four breast cancer pilot projects. Participants in the pilot projects are comparing the proteomes of clinical samples and cultured cells, looking at how cells proliferate, searching for breast cancer biomarkers, and investigating the mechanisms of carcinogenic transformation. All of these projects are ongoing. This initial program is focused on aspects of breast cancer, but Souchelnytskyi explains that additional research projects on other mammary gland disorders
probably will be added in the future. The other MGPI programs are more administrative than the breast cancer one. In the program devoted to standardizing the generation, deposition, and processing of data, MGPI members are working with bioinformatics researchers at the European Bioinformatics Institute (U.K.), who also are involved with the HUPO Proteomics Standards Initiative. Among other issues, this group will investigate how mass spectra should be recorded, saved, and interpreted. The technology program helps members obtain the knowledge necessary to perform new methods. “If I need to use a technology that I don’t have in my lab, then I contact [the program] participants, and MGPI can arrange the use of this technology,” says Souchelnytskyi. For example, he has trained scientists from Italy on a new phosphoprotein enrichment method through the program. Finally, the logistics program will deal with organizational and financial issues as well as relations with other organizations, such as HUPO.
Many of the projects and programs were going full steam ahead after the Uppsala meeting, but MGPI didn’t gather again until the Cambridge workshop a few months ago. Souchelnytskyi explains that 2006 was a busy year for him because he moved his lab to a different institution, so MGPI matters took a backseat for a while. When Alldridge received funding earlier this year to hold a meeting, however, they decided to hold another MGPI get-together to reinvigorate the initiative and to open it up to anyone who was interested. Souchelnytskyi says that researchers who missed the Cambridge meeting but would like to join MGPI can do so by emailing him at serhiy.souchel
[email protected]. A few issues, such as where to locate the headquarters and who will coordinate the initiative, still must be decided. In addition to these organizational issues, the group also will have to keep the ball rolling. “I think the challenge coming up is maintaining MGPI and sustaining the energy,” says Alldridge. —Katie Cottingham
G O V E R N M E N T A N D SOCIE T Y
The debut of MIAPE documents In back-to-back open-access papers in the August 2007 issue of Nature Biotechnology, members of the HUPO Proteomics Standards Initiative (PSI) discuss standards they have developed for reporting data and other proteomics information. The first paper is on the minimum information about a proteomics experiment (MIAPE). In the other paper, the minimum information required for reporting a molecular interaction experiment (MIMIx) is described. The MIMIx checklist is the first MIAPE module to be published. When deciding which types of data and metadata should be included in each MIAPE module, PSI members say that they were guided by two criteria: sufficiency and practicability. In other words, the guidelines should include enough information for readers to understand and evaluate the conclusions and interpretations of an experiment, but they should not be such a nuisance to follow that researchers will ignore
them. The members stress that, with these guidelines, PSI is not dictating that researchers follow a particular standard procedure. Instead, the MIAPE standards simply require scientists to report the steps they followed during an experiment. The MIAPE parent document, which outlines the motivations and the structure of this PSI effort, will remain sta ble, but the associated modules such as MIMIx will be flexible to allow for advances in technology. To minimize overlap with standards projects in other disciplines, PSI limited the modules to techniques that are relatively specific to proteomics. PSI also is a member of the transbiology project called minimal information for biological and biomedical investigations (known as MIBBI), which helps standards developers make sure that their standards do not conflict with those proposed by researchers who use the same techniques in other fields. In addition to helping readers better understand an experiment, MIAPE compliance allows researchers to orga-
nize their own data and experimental procedures. According to PSI members, another motivating factor will be pressure from funding organizations and journals to share data and to adhere to standard practices adopted by the relevant scientific community. Information about all of the PSI MIAPE projects is available at www. psidev.info.
NCI funds Tumor Glycome Laboratories The U.S. National Cancer Institute has announced that seven Tumor Glycome Laboratories will be funded to pursue projects to find glycan-based biomakers of cancer. The $15.5 million, 5 year initiative is part of a larger Alliance of Glycobiologists for Detection of Cancer and Cancer Risk that includes other groups, such as the Consortium for Functional Glycomics and several resource centers that are devoted to glycomics and glycotechnology research, all of which are funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
Journal of Proteome Research • Vol. 6, No. 10, 2007 3877
