Risk Reduction Following Dietary Manipulation In the Postgenomic Era , Can High-Dimensional Analyses Deliver the Answers We ’ re Looking for ? 1 , 2

Although significant investigation of the health of this nation (the United States) underwent a significant step forward with the establishment of the National Institutes of Health in 1948, most younger investigators (and many politicians) see the beginning of this millennium as the place where substantive research began because it was then when the global and detailed features of the human genome became clear for the first time. This expansive vista was supposed to radically change our ability to treat, cure, and prevent disease. Scientists, entrepreneurs, and clinicians alike looked to it for unique solutions to the pressing problems of disease and aging. Although large by many standards, the total number of genes discovered in the human genome was a disappointment. However, it spawned new (sic, old) technologies, the study of proteins and metabolites, and gave them new names, proteomics and metabolomics, to take part in the search for recognizable signatures of disease. Serum, plasma, urine, and other physiological fluids were collected, separated, and analyzed at an ever-increasing pace and scope. Many promises were made, and discovery became the standard for research excellence. However, this frenetic pace of research largely ignored other scientific fundamentals of good science. It is worth taking stock of where we are and what it will take to deliver the solutions we so urgently strive for. The study of disease systems is in an analogous position to where physics was at the turn of the 20th century, except that fundamental particles in physics are now in the form of genes, proteins, and metabolites. It is realized that what follows from these discoveries is an integration of biological knowledge, a discipline known as bioinformatics or advanced library networking. The Internet, because of its virtual library capabilities, allows for an enormously diverse group of facts to become immediately available after the initial discovery of a protein. Although this is impressive, it does not necessarily take us much further forward in real understanding. Indeed, the view of biology that the application of all the current methodologies allows is merely classical in nature. And it suffers from being for the most part low dimensional, particularly in the time domain. This view limits the understanding of how biological systems really work. Where the future lies is contained in perturbations of systems in time. Biological stimuli are not the square waveforms used by most investigators in cell culture studies but instead are highly rhythmic and thereby are in resonance with processes in cells. And by further analogy to physics, it is likely that biological systems are quantized and will exhibit weird behavior. An example of a quantized system is a group of cells that have on average 3 transcripts of a rare transcription factor (the classical view). If all cells in this group were analyzed, they would be instead shown to have a distribution of transcripts, centered around 3. The number of transcripts in any 1 cell cannot be predicted, and if one resampled a cell with no transcripts at a time in the past, it would have finite probability of having a transcript now. This is somewhat similar to determining the position and motion of an electron is in an atom. Uncertainty is a feature of biology as well as physics. To probe how a complex system responds, we currently have DNA microarrays to measure gene expression in cells (1), proteomics methods to identify proteins (2,3), examine protein abundances (4) and protein modifications (5), and metabolomics to determine how metabolite levels change (6) in physiological fluids and tissues. Each of these methods is a technical tour de force within the context of the analytical chemistry that is available in the early 21 century. DNA microarrays depend on the specific hybridization of message (mRNA) with short oligonucleotides (20–25 bp) that are specific for an individual gene in a genome. Related methods use spotted cDNAs; these are more reliable because they have a much greater hybridization but suffer from cross-reactivity between gene homologs. Most of the known genes in a genome can be spotted on a single glass slide. Although this is at first sight very impressive, the statistics of such systems are poorly understood: there is a competition between optimizing discovery and controlling the false discovery rate. And even if a gene is shown to have significantly changed, does this mean that it is a meaningful event? It is argued that what occurs at the level of 1 Published in a supplement to The Journal of Nutrition. Presented as part of the conference ‘‘The Use and Misuse of Biomarkers as Indicators of Cancer Risk Reduction Following Dietary Manipulation’’ held July 12–13, 2005 in Bethesda, MD. This conference was sponsored by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), National Institutes of Health, DHHS; and the Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, DHHS. Guest Editors for the supplement publication were Harold E. Seifried, National Cancer Institute, NIH; and Claudine Kavanaugh, CFSAN, FDA. Guest editor disclosure: H.E. Seifried, no relationships to disclose; C. Kavanaugh, no relationships to disclose. 2 Author disclosure: no relationships to disclose. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: sbarnes@uab.edu.