Each appears to be a legitimate, groundbreaking area of scientific inquiry. Each focuses on…a “system-based” view (?), putting Humans in a broader context.
Genome - how our genetic materials drive/influence different characteristics and conditions
Biome - Humans in a symbiotic ecosystem context, adding in the various flora and fauna that are part of our existence.
Connectome - a comprehensive map of neural connections in the brain, and may be thought of as its “wiring diagram” - used to consider how connections evolve over time and/or assume different states under different situations.
Exposome - a tracking of When and What chemicals and environmental factors a Human is exposed to. Looking for correlation/causation between certain factors at specific age-ranges to increase or decrease risks.
This seems interesting to me. Anyone else out there?
What other 'omes are out there? What discussion or literature is out there looking across these areas of inquiry and what they say about how Humans are learning about ourselves and our context(s) and systems? I’m sure some TED dude/guru has harmonized about this, right?
genome - the set of all genes in a cell
transcriptome - the set of all RNA in a cell
proteome - the set of all proteins in a cell
metabolome - the set of all small molecules in a cell
Yup, those four are the only ones I do not reflexively roll my eyes at. Adding -ome to every god damn thing that a biologist has studied is one of the great blights upon the field. If I hear someone invent one more fucking -ome I will assume that they are a blithering idiot until they prove otherwise.
Microbiome- all of the microorganism in a given environment. It started with body parts (skin microbiome, gut microbiome) and has moved on to environments (kitchen, drinking water, soil, etc)
I guess that is my point: There is a fine line between a new way of thinking and a fad. How are Scientists viewing this 'ome approach? And now that many things are being positioned as nails to its hammer, how much of that is good stuff?
Again, I would think that there would be discussions Pro and Con for “Going 'Ome-ish” (shoot me; I thought it was funny ;)).
Reminds me of Business: every few years there is a new Major Theme for how to succeed in Today’s Business. They follow the 80/20 Rule: a small percent of companies are genuinely able to apply the Theme. Most others are either only able to get a bit of value, or just getting latest stamp in their passport going nowhere fast.
Back when proteome and transcriptome were just coming to the fore, my grad school buddies and I made a joke that the next big -ome would the be phenome. Imagine our dismay when we saw that word being used a year later. I still don’t know WTF a phenome supposed to represent.
As with all things in science, it depends solely on how useful it is. If you can find some legitimate, interesting insights by using an -omics approach, then go for it. If you’re just trying to coin a new word or relabel a field for the sake of the word, then it’s an annoying fad.
If someone is just trying to look at all the ways they Resonate with The Infinite, and all of the possible factors involved, would that just be their Ohm? Or would it be their Ohmome?
But - back to a more serious slant: Scientist Dopers, is this actively discussed, this “ome-ification”? Are there columns in journals, blog entries, etc., that discuss this trend and its pros and cons?
