Protein names in titles
I formulated a principle at a conference I just attended: ignore talks and posters with protein names in their title or the first sentence of their introduction.
It’s an issue of relevance. Each major discipline has its own concept of relevance. Roughly, a problem gains relevance as it constrains swathes of a field. Alain Aspect’s experimental tests of Bell’s inequalities was eminently relevant to physics because of the amount of speculation in quantum mechanics which they ended. Integrable models in statistical mechanics are less physically relevant because they only point out directions of interest in the limited corners where they were formulated.
Biology has its own relevance, largely dictated by evolution. Results are less relevant the more narrowly they apply to specific genera, species, or strains. Results on specific organisms are relevant only insofar as they can be combined with results in other organisms to produce a larger picture.
Chemistry has its own relevance, largely based on the fact that a carbon is always a carbon, a hydrogen is always a hydrogen.
Much of molecular biology, cell biology, and immunology is almost chemical in its aesthetic. Immunoglobulins share so much structure throughout vertebrates that studying them with an eye only to chemical relevance, as if an IgB were always and IgB, still has biologically relevance. DNA, that ubiquitous molecule, invites a chemical approach. Type III secretion systems vary enough among species to doom the purely chemical aesthetic.
As a rule of thumb, any molecule familiar to a random biologist from a random field is fair game for a chemical approach. DNA is justified. IgB is justified. A particular Rac GTPase or kinase involved in synthesizing a particular phosphoinositol are not.
If it is not, you must provide the biological context. What organisms, and what variation among them? What phenomenon caused this protein to rear its head? If the protein’s name has already appeared in the title, then relevance has been squeezed out.