Multiplexing is a relatively new addition to the Oxford English Dictionary and in the encyclopedic version is defined as “the simultaneous transmission of several messages along a single channel of communication”. It is also a relatively new addition to the vocabulary of the clinical chemist, having been imported from the lexicon of the genomics, proteomics, and drug discovery scientists, but it is not a new concept for the clinical chemist who has been exposed to the use of so-called multichannel analyzers for many years, first continuous flow and then discrete analyzers. Some historians of automation might look back to the centrifugal analyzer as the first challenge to multichannel analysis, but there is now at least one example of this technology that provides a profile of analytes on a single sample (1). If these are indeed early examples of multiplexing analyzers, then they distinguish themselves—by today’s standards—by using large amounts of sample and reagents, by a choice of analytes that are not always clinically justified, and by an inability (with a few notable exceptions) to embrace immunoassay and other ligand-binding assay techniques for low-concentration analytes. However, the greatest legacy of the first era of multiplexing analysis is probably the perception that there is too much laboratory testing as well as numerous apocryphal stories of patients being investigated after the generation of an abnormal result, rather than for the presenting symptoms! So with the advent of microarray platforms, are we seeing the reincarnation of multiplexing analytical strategies and the evolutionary cycle turning full circle? The concept of the multianalyte array based on immunologic capture and interrogation technology is not new, with an editorial on the subject in this Journal almost a decade ago (2). So what has been achieved in the intervening period? Certainly the interrogation of captured molecules using antibodies with …