Okay, maybe I'll pass on the amzn
and dell, heh heh.
I must say, I am very much enjoying
this hobby--but I think I am going to
have to take a step down from that
cell book and get a little simpler
text--I am finding that I do not even
have a basic understanding of genomics
--which is too bad, there has been some
discussion on another thread of Gene
Logic...and I am having trouble asking
the right questions.
Here is my latest question, maybe you can help Rick:
I understand that Gene Logic, and a handful of other
genomic/bioinformatic companies, are looking for compounds
that have an effect on expression of relevant genes--what
are the advantages of looking at the genetic level, rather
than searching somewhere further down the line of cellular
events? To a molecular biologist the answer is probably
obvious, but not to me!
As you probably know I am overweighted in stocks that
have interesting lead compounds already--the kind of
stuff that can result in nice pops in the stock price
when articles are run, hype gets going etc. Of course
cnsi, one of my largest holdings now, is going to be
filing for INDs for rhGGF2, their glial growth factor
for various CNS indications.
What I worry about is that these genomic companies are
going to rush in and find a whole gaggle of new lead
compounds--since a lot of these cns diseases seem to
have a hereditary component...e.g. MS seems to run
higher in Scots and Northern Europeans so genes are
playing.
Did I even touch on the right question?
You see I went to the glgc website, and they had a
few images of up/down regulation response off one of
their chips--their chip only has something on the
order of 100 data points. That seems to be an awfully
simple approach when you consider that affx puts
50,000 data points on their big chips--but maybe
the GLGC solutions is much more elegant and I am
missing something because I've never taken genomics 101.
--Mike |
