November 1, 2017
How does a new conference enter the academic calendar? I was encouraged by the example set by the Clinical Proteomics / Post-Genome Medicine meeting (ClinProt 2017), and I thought it might be useful to talk about some of the things that the group did really well, while relating a bit of what unfolded for me in my last day at the conference.
First off, this is far from the first meeting to take place in Russia on the subject of human proteomics. The Russian Human Proteome Organization has been operating since 2002, and it sponsors two distinct meetings yearly. The main meeting takes place in the city of Kazan each October. Members who are particularly interested in bioinformatics may participate in an annual meeting at the city of Novosibirsk (Bioinformatics of Genome Regulation and Structure / Systems Biology). The RHUPO has also successfully organized a big event for the world HUPO; in 2009, Dr. Alexander Archakov hosted the third Human Proteome Project Workshop in Moscow!
The ClinProt 2017 meeting seemed special in that it sought to foster connections among many different institutions within Russia; the program was salted with several investigators across Europe and the broader world, but the emphasis seemed to be on developing networks within the country, including multidisciplinary links. As I look across the eleven-member organizational team in the conference program, I see five different research institutions, all in Russia, represented by post-doctoral scientists. This team of junior researchers will all have valuable experience for the future, and senior scientists who attended the meetings will remember who they could rely upon when trying to solve a last-minute problem before a talk!
I would catalog several things, then, that the organizers did right:
- Skin in the game
- Because several institutions contributed organizers, more schools sent speakers, poster presenters, and trainees. In total, 350 people registered, and 274 attended. That’s pretty great for a first conference!
- Personal touch
- Several speakers mentioned that they had been recruited by an organizer who knew them from prior contact. Since professors frequently get spammed by for-profit conferences, these personal contacts made a difference in getting the names they wanted for the meeting agenda.
- Detail focus
- I heard several of the organizers quietly worrying about whether something was going to go just right. Throughout, it was clear that each person knew what his or her responsibility included. The team was definitely committed.
- Industry works
- I occasionally hear academics sneer at the inclusion of instrument and reagent vendors in speaker rosters, but their participation in a meeting adds more than just money. I was glad to see a representative from Helicon lecture on the value of CyTOF for cell counting applications, since I am mentoring a student working with such data.
I became aware that we had some special guests today as I lingered in the speaker ready room. Several people in suits made an appearance. I had a rapid conversation with Sergey Suchkov, an M.D. and Ph.D. who has a relentless energy about him. He has a strong interest in developing relationships among BRICS nations in the field of “precision medicine” (sometimes called “personalized medicine”), and he wanted to talk about some possibilities between South Africa and Russia in that space. We agreed to touch base this afternoon when he could introduce me to another M.D. Ph.D. friend of his who has become involved in genome bioinformatics. That meting put forward some interesting possibilities in tuberculosis, which has become problematic in the Russian prison system. I hope we will be able to define some projects we can pursue together in this space.
Right away, though, I had to leave our discussion to teach my afternoon workshop on performing post-hoc quality control assessment in large-scale proteome projects. I was very grateful that the conference organizers could add a link to their website so that participants could download the R statistical script and input files for the workshop directly from the link above. That way the conference attendees who needed to leave Moscow early can still get access to the tutorial.
This was my first time to teach a workshop on quality control. My normal curriculum has emphasized protein identification or the recognition of post-translational modifications. Since I am now chairing the HUPO-PSI working group on quality control, though, it was a good time for me to put together some training materials in this space. I chose a highly visible data set, the 1425 LC-MS/MS experiments that the Vanderbilt team produced from colorectal cancer samples for the National Cancer Institute CPTAC program. The workshop would focus on recreating figures that Xia Wang at U-Cincinnati had scripted in the R statistical environment from tables of QC metrics that my team had generated.
I was really pleased with the dozen or so students who attended the workshop. Their questions were very good, and their understanding of the statistical concepts was at a very high level. To give one example, a student asked how differently the files would have spread in my plot of the first two principal components if we had used ordinary PCA rather than robust PCA. Another asked how hierarchical clustering would visualize these data in principal components space. These are not the questions one encounters with people who have never seen PCA before!
So color me impressed. This meeting ran like clockwork, and the students came ready to learn. The speaker list did not have some of the biggest names in world proteomics, but in fact I trusted what I was hearing more because it came from investigators who had worked at the bench more recently. I am of course grateful for the time I’ve been given to see Russia first-hand, but in the end I was brought here to teach and to learn. I enjoyed both missions!