Proteomics—The State of the Field: The Definition and Analysis of Proteomes Should Be Based in Reality, Not Convenience

With growing recognition and acknowledgement of the genuine complexity of proteomes, we are finally entering the post-proteogenomic era. Routine assessment of proteomes as inferred correlates of gene sequences (i.e., canonical ‘proteins’) cannot provide the necessary critical analysis of systems-level biology that is needed to understand underlying molecular mechanisms and pathways or identify the most selective biomarkers and therapeutic targets. These critical requirements demand the analysis of proteomes at the level of proteoforms/protein species, the actual active molecular players. Currently, only highly refined integrated or integrative top-down proteomics (iTDP) enables the analytical depth necessary to provide routine, comprehensive, and quantitative proteome assessments across the widest range of proteoforms inherent to native systems. Here we provide a broad perspective of the field, taking in historical and current realities, to establish a more balanced understanding of where the field has come from (in particular during the ten years since Proteomes was launched), current issues, and how things likely need to proceed if necessary deep proteome analyses are to succeed. We base this in our firm belief that the best proteomic analyses reflect, as closely as possible, the native sample at the moment of sampling. We also seek to emphasise that this and future analytical approaches are likely best based on the broad recognition and exploitation of the complementarity of currently successful approaches. This also emphasises the need to continuously evaluate and further optimize established approaches, to avoid complacency in thinking and expectations but also to promote the critical and careful development and introduction of new approaches, most notably those that address proteoforms. Above all, we wish to emphasise that a rigorous focus on analytical quality must override current thinking that largely values analytical speed; the latter would certainly be nice, if only proteoforms could thus be effectively, routinely, and quantitatively assessed. Alas, proteomes are composed of proteoforms, not molecular species that can be amplified or that directly mirror genes (i.e., ‘canonical’). The problem is hard, and we must accept and address it as such, but the payoff in playing this longer game of rigorous deep proteome analyses is the promise of far more selective biomarkers, drug targets, and truly personalised or even individualised medicine.