In a previous post on whether samples should be pooled or not for proteomic profiling, we discussed this approach, which can be quite cost-wise, while still allowing to see the main biomarkers differentiating one physiological condition from another (e.g. disease vs healthy control).

In real life, however, this discrimination between physiological conditions may be difficult to define. Let’s take, for example, a study aimed at studying the differential immune response to an infection, and how this can be used to design more efficient therapies in different population subgroups.

Back in the XIXth century, tens of thousands of people rushed to California to find gold and become rich. Most of them did not succeed, but those who did, really did (especially the companies owning the mines). Something similar happens with diagnostic kits nowadays. The trend is towards more personalised medicine, either at the diagnosis step, or at the therapeutical step. Newly marketed drugs include companion diagnostics, development of new diagnostics is increasing, and the need for accurate results is more important than ever. One size does not fit all.

To pool or not to pool biological samples? This question might pop up in the mind of anyone designing biomarker discovery approaches!

Much debate has been raised on biomarker discovery from clinical cohort studies, since the first experiments linking SNPs to disease phenotypes, to the current and new proteomic and miRNA technologies. The answer to this question strictly depends on clinical data, patient group characteristics and… financial means.