Meeting report: the fourth Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) workshop

Why Hasn't Genomic Testing Changed the Landscape in Clinical Oncology?

The "omics" revolution produced great optimism that tumor biomarker tests based on high-order analysis of multiple (sometimes thousands) of factors would result in truly personalized oncologic care. Unfortunately, 10 years into the revolution, the promise of omics-based research has not yet been realized. The factors behind the slow progress in omics-based clinical care are many. First, over the last 15 years, there has been a gradual recognition of the importance of conducting tumor biomarker science with the kind of rigor that has traditionally been used for therapeutic research. However, this recognition has only recently been applied widely, and therefore most tumor biomarkers have insufficiently high levels of evidence to determine clinical utility. Second, omics-based research offers its own particular set of concerns, especially in regard to overfitting computational models and false discovery rates. Researchers and clinicians need to understand the importance of analytic validity, and the difference between clinical/biologic validity and clinical utility. The latter is required to introduce a tumor biomarker test of any kind (single analyte or omics-based), and are ideally generated by carefully planned and properly conducted "prospective retrospective" or truly prospective clinical trials. Only carefully planned studies, which take all three of these into account and in which the investigators are aware and recognize the enormous risk of unintended bias and overfitting inherent in omics-based test development, will ultimately result in translation of the exciting new technologies into better care for patients with cancer.

Standardization and omics science: technical and social dimensions are inseparable and demand symmetrical study

Standardization is critical to scientists and regulators to ensure the quality and interoperability of research processes, as well as the safety and efficacy of the attendant research products. This is perhaps most evident in the case of "omics science," which is enabled by a host of diverse high-throughput technologies such as genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics. But standards are of interest to (and shaped by) others far beyond the immediate realm of individual scientists, laboratories, scientific consortia, or governments that develop, apply, and regulate them. Indeed, scientific standards have consequences for the social, ethical, and legal environment in which innovative technologies are regulated, and thereby command the attention of policy makers and citizens. This article argues that standardization of omics science is both technical and social. A critical synthesis of the social science literature indicates that: (1) standardization requires a degree of flexibility to be practical at the level of scientific practice in disparate sites; (2) the manner in which standards are created, and by whom, will impact their perceived legitimacy and therefore their potential to be used; and (3) the process of standardization itself is important to establishing the legitimacy of an area of scientific research.

Meeting Report: "Metagenomics, Metadata and Meta-analysis" (M3) Special Interest Group at ISMB 2009

This report summarizes the proceedings of the “Metagenomics, Metadata and Meta-analysis” (M3) Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting held at the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology 2009 conference. The Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) hosted this meeting to explore the bottlenecks and emerging solutions for obtaining biological insights through large-scale comparative analysis of metagenomic datasets. The M3 SIG included 16 talks, half of which were selected from submitted abstracts, a poster session and a panel discussion involving members of the GSC Board. This report summarizes this one-day SIG, attempts to identify shared themes and recapitulates community recommendations for the future of this field. The GSC will also host an M3 workshop at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB) in January 2010. Further information about the GSC and its range of activities can be found at http://gensc.org/.