Created: 1st June 1999, last updated: 12th July 1999, © 1999 ABRF
"ABRF '99 Bioinformatics and Biomolecular Technologies: Linking Genomes, Proteomes, and Biochemistry" was a resounding success. Attendance was the highest ever (952 attendees), and comments received included "an outstanding scientific program," "outstanding speakers," and "the best ABRF meeting yet." Congratulations to Mark Lively and David Landsmann for organizing such a successful scientific program. Rave reviews were also received for the first ABRF-sponsored pre-meeting course "Protein Sequencing by Mass Spectrometry" taught by Professor Don Hunt. Approximately 130 individuals signed up for the course, which was limited to 100 attendees. The course was intensive; class met from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM and was followed by homework problems that kept most participants busy until midnight. Attendees felt they had learned more than they had expected, and despite the intensive class work, they are ready for more. Murray Hackett is planning a follow-up course for ABRF 2000 on "Sample Preparation for Sequencing by Mass Spectrometry." As the first course has set the standard, Murray has a lot of work to do to create an equally successful program! Reudi Aebersold has named an international member, Ulf Landegren, from the Uppsala Biomedical Center in Sweden, as his co-organizer for ABRF 2000. The meeting will be held in Bellevue, Washington (just outside of Seattle) on February 19 through 21. Mark your calendar now.
Ron Niece and Ken Mitchelhill have received permission to send copies of an article to be published in the Encyclopedia of Bioprocess Technology entitled "Professional Societies, Association of Biomolecular Facilities" to all ABRF members. This article is enclosed with this issue of the Journal, and it describes the history of the ABRF, its mission, and its research groups. We hope you find this article useful and interesting.
An impromptu meeting between ABRF members, Al Burlingame, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) representatives was favorably received at the ABRF '99 annual meeting. Members found this meeting informative, and it was suggested that a similar meeting be formalized for ABRF 2000 and that information on funding opportunities be listed on the ABRF Web Site and in the Journal. Implementation of these suggestions is being discussed.
Our treasurer, Karen De Jongh, reported on the society finances at ABRF '99. The society is financially sound and in good shape, especially after the success of the ABRF '99 annual meeting. A decision on society management is expected by this summer. This decision will be made with less trepidation knowing that the finances of the society are stable and improving.
The Executive Board met with the chairpersons of each committee and research group the afternoon before ABRF '99 to discuss problems, future goals, and opportunities. The ultimate goal of the research groups is to design studies that will prove useful to ABRF members. It was agreed that results from the studies need to be published in a timely and professional manner, that research groups should be careful not to duplicate studies, and that research group membership should turn over in a timely manner and incorporate individuals with knowledge, expertise, and skills needed to keep the research group studies up to date. It was also recommended that research groups be encouraged to combine studies, as is presently being done between the Quality Control and Compliance Research Group and the Peptide Synthesis Research Group.
Three new research groups are in the formative stages: one lead by Duane Bartley which will focus on fragment analysis, one by George Grills on gene array technology, and one by Preston Hensley on molecular interactions of biomolecules. The criteria for approval for new research groups by the ABRF Executive Board are (1) expertise, (2) enthusiasm, (3) the percentage of the ABRF membership that will benefit from the studies from such a group, and (4) necessity for being an separate research group. It is very important that a research group be established with an experienced initial membership--one that asks the important questions before initiating a study and one that makes sure the results are disseminated to the membership and published. The initial members will set the standard for those who follow. It should also be determined, usually by some type of survey, how many members of the ABRF would like to see the formation of such a research group and would participate in their studies. The Executive Board will consider whether the technology in question can be incorporated into an existing research group or merits a group of its own. These new groups appear to be off to a good start. The new organizers and the Executive Board would appreciate your comments and opinions on the formation and function of the new research groups.
Left to right: Jennifer Smith, Hewlett-Packard Corporation; Marvin H. Caruthers, 1999 ABRF Award Recipient; and Lynda Bonewald, President, ABRF.
Dr. Marvin H. Caruthers of the University of Colorado, Boulder, received the 1999 ABRF Award for his seminal contributions to the chemical synthesis of DNA, and in particular, for the development of the phosphoramidite chemistry widely used to synthesize DNA molecules.
Each year the ABRF Award recognizes outstanding contributions to the development of instrumentation or methodology in the biological sciences. This award is part of the ABRF's commitment to recognize the central role that methodology plays in the discovery process. It is made possible by the generous support of the Hewlett-Packard Corporation. Past awardees include Frederick Sanger, Klaus Bieman, David Lipman, Lloyd Smith, and Bruce Merrifield.
In 1981, Dr. Caruthers and colleagues published two research papers that revolutionized biomolecular research. These papers introduced the now familiar method of solid-phase DNA synthesis using phosphoramidite chemistry. Following its introduction, phosphoramidite chemistry rapidly became the DNA synthesis chemistry of choice because of its inherently high coupling yields and its suitability for automation. Subsequently, Dr. Caruthers assisted in the development of the first commercial automated DNA synthesizer, which was released in December of 1982 by Applied Biosystems as the Model 380A. Descendants of this instrument are now used by biochemists, biologists, molecular biologists, and biophysical chemists worldwide.
Automated DNA synthesizers have opened the door to countless critical applications that would have been impossible to envision without them. For instance, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for which the Nobel Prize was recently awarded, and the Sanger DNA sequencing method, which also resulted in the awarding of the Nobel Prize and which formed part of the basis for the first ABRF Award, would not be nearly as useful without the ability to rapidly and easily synthesize the necessary primers. The same can be said about any procedure that uses oligonucleotides, which includes virtually any procedure in modern molecular biology. The incredible and unrelenting demand for synthetic oligonucleotides has led to the development of a multibillion-dollar industry in reagent production, DNA products, and instrumentation. The impact of this technology on biological research is huge and immeasurable. The work constitutes a key cornerstone in the edifice of modern science.
Dr. Caruthers has received numerous other awards for his creative work, including the Biotechnology National Ventures Award in 1992, the Cresson Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1994, and election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences in 1994.
"Protein and Peptide Sequence Analysis by Tandem Mass Spectrometry" was the first Satellite Meeting offered by the ABRF in conjunction with its annual meeting. The short course took place during the three days before the recent annual meeting, "ABRF '99 Bioinformatics and Biomolecular Technologies: Linking Genomes, Proteomes, and Biochemistry," in Durham, North Carolina. Professor Donald F. Hunt of University of Virginia Departments of Chemistry and Pathology presented the course on interpretation of mass spectrometry data to 101 registrants with the help of his students Jennifer Caldwell and Bob Settlage. After the two and one-half days of instruction and discussion of ion trap MS/MS spectra and solving 29 homework problems, 90 respondents returned an evaluation form for the short course. Course participants ranged from mass spectrometrists with considerable experience and expertise to non-mass spectrometrists taking the short course as their introduction to interpretation of mass spectra. Based on their responses, the consensus was almost unanimous that the course was superb and worth the effort and time to take. Many comments went beyond a simple response that the short course met their expectations; most attendees got out of the course much more than they had anticipated and praised the focus of the course and the quality of the teaching. The course exceeded expectations and offered an opportunity to learn from an expert and accomplished teacher and jump-started many novice mass spectrometer users into the joys and pitfalls of MS. The responding attendees were employed in 12 different countries; approximately one fourth came from outside the United States. Nearly 95% of the respondents planned to attend the ABRF meeting immediately following the course, and 15% reported it was the commitment to attend the course that made it possible to also attend the ABRF meeting. Most respondents reported that they would attend another course on an appropriate topic at the next ABRF meeting. Many topics were offered as being of considerable interest and as suggestions for short courses at ABRF 2000. From the ABRF point of view, the course was an unqualified success at meeting all the organization's criteria: it provided education for users of technology, introduced new technology to users and nonusers, established a network among developers and users of new methodology, introduced ABRF to researchers around the world, was economically priced for the attendees, and was not a drain on the organization's resources. The Mass Spectrometry Research Group, and especially its recently appointed chairperson, Murray Hackett, are to be congratulated for organizing the short course and putting together this excellent training opportunity that benefited so many.
In response to concerns expressed by ABRF member laboratories, the Executive Board undertook communications with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) regarding review criteria for resource laboratories supported by NCI-funded Cancer Resource Centers. Although the complaints had common themes, they differed in detail. Their nature suggested a misplaced focus of accountants and administrators at both universities and the NCI on cost savings and cost recovery at the expense of scientific discovery. To promote infusion of innovative technologies into the research programs of cancer investigators, resource laboratories require time to establish new technologies, provide instruction on their use, and adapt methods to each individual project. The ABRF Executive Board suggested that these should also be the most important criteria for evaluating technology-based core laboratories. Furthermore, a new category of pilot funds was proposed to help cancer research laboratories take advantage of unanticipated opportunities made available through methodological advances. At the invitation of the NCI, the ABRF Executive Board has suggested specific changes to the language of the guidelines for Cancer Research Centers.
The Education Committee hosted a roundtable discussion at ABRF '99 entitled "New Technologies and Ideas in the Next Millennium for Core Facilities." The discussions centered around three central topics: Biomolecular Interactions, Laboratory Automation, and Bioinformatics.
Preston Hensley of Pfizer initiated the discussion on biomolecular interactions by presenting some of his ideas and experiences in this field. With about 350 biopharmaceuticals in the clinic and about fivefold more in discovery, he believes that the study of biomolecular interactions will become an important facet in core facilities over the next several years. He spoke briefly on the key technologies applied in this area: analytical ultracentrifugation, isothermal titration calorimetry, and optical biosensor methodology. In his experience, setting up an independent biomolecular interactions core facility probably requires an investment of about one million dollars in equipment and a well-trained staff of six persons. The equipment that should ideally be included in such a facility are a mass spectrometer, surface plasmon resonance, analytical ultracentrifuge, microcalorimeter, fluorescence, circular dichroism and light scatter equipment for spectroscopy ,and quench-flow and stopped-flow kinetics equipment. If funds are limited, the best buy would be the surface plasmon resonance, which requires about 50 to 100 mg of protein and takes a few hours per run. If throughput is a concern, the BIACORE enables the highest speed, running about 36 samples in 36 hours. Discussions on this topic indicated that several participants had been approached about offering these services due to an increasing demand for characterization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A handful of facilities currently offer some form of a biomolecular interactions service, and several more were investigating the possibility of initiating these types of services.
For the next topic, Keith Ashman of EMBL began a discussion on laboratory automation by sharing some of his experiences. To increase the throughput for protein characterization, his group had to automate the sample preparations. They designed a robotic system to automate their in-gel digestions in a 96-well format. Several people indicated their desire to see the robotic design published. Discussion centered around the pros and cons of automated solutions. To maximize the benefit of automation, his advice was to buy robotics and software already on the market and put your protocol on it and design your own work area. Another suggestion was learning your protocol by hand before automating it, because this practice can alert you to areas that may need more attention during automation.
The last topic, bioinformatics, included queries about whether people routinely search their data against databases and which databases are used the most in this regard. Most people seemed to use some GCG type of integrated package. There was some interest in having a booklet describing and evaluating Internet tools to educate users because there are so many available.
The committee was pleased to have such active participation in the roundtable and thanks all the attendees for their valuable contributions. If there are any comments or suggestions from the membership to add to these discussions, please contact any member of the education committee.
The Peptide Synthesis Research Group (PSRG) will present a workshop entitled "The Analysis of Synthetic Peptides" at the 16th Annual Meeting of the American Peptide Society to be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, from June 26 through July 1, 1999. Validation of peptide composition and sequence is important for such peptide uses as production of antibodies and is absolutely essential for studies involving the bioactivity of peptides. The workshop is scheduled for June 28 from 7:00 to 8:30 PM and will be presented by members of the PSRG. Presenters include the new chair of the PSRG, Ashok Khatri; two members, Steve Kates and Nick Ambulos; and a former chairperson, now president of the ABRF, Lynda Bonewald. PSRG members unable to attend but whose work is included in the workshop are Lisa Bibbs, Kati Medzihradszky, George Osapay, and Sue Weintraub. The workshop will focus on the methodologies used for the analysis of synthetic peptides and their proper application. Specific examples of characterization of peptides will be given, and problem peptide solving will be discussed.