blog

The quality assurance and confidence in commercially available antibodies is something researchers naturally expect. Antibodies are a mainstay reagent in laboratories globally, but despite their abundant use they’re often the source of experimental torment. Inconsistencies in antibody catalogues and batch-to-batch variability means sometimes researchers are unable to reliably provide expected results and this uncertainty ultimately cost them precious time and money.

Eighteen months ago we launched the Antibody Validations channel, and devised a unique antibody validation article type to help confront some of these issues. We created a space for researchers and companies to publish antibody validation studies regardless of the outcome, and look up existing validation articles for antibodies of their interest. Since the launch, we have published an eclectic mix of experimental validations from both academia and industry as well as showcasing some poignant opinions and commentaries around the issues of antibody validation (do go check them out!)

A question that seems to be constantly asked is, “who’s responsibility is it to ensure an antibody can be used with confidence?” Is it the companies that manufacturer them or the researchers that end up using them? Or is it both?

Recently we published two articles from Proteintech, a company who only sells antibodies produced in-house. They have published an article which highlights the siRNA knockdown technique they use to validate their antibodies, and also an antibody validation article detailing the experiments used to validate the specificity of the anti-REDD1 antibody from their catalogue. Proteintech decided to publish these papers as they wanted the wider scientific community to acknowledge the robust validation tests they are using to strengthen the credibility of their antibodies and through our publication model they were able to make all the necessary information available including all the source data. Both papers have been openly (and positively) reviewed by experts in the field and this information is now part of the scientific literature. This transparent approach is something that could easily be embraced by other companies as a way to provide the community with the type of information they need to help them feel confident they are getting an antibody that will work with their experimental set up.

However, realistically it shouldn’t just be companies validating antibodies – the end user must also share the responsibility when validating for their own experiments. More and more this is becoming a topic of conversation in the community and there are many ongoing initiatives that are advocating for improvements to be made. The Global Biological Standards Institute are aiming to help develop antibody validation guidelines for researchers and manufacturers to apply to their reagents as there are currently no universally recognised standards being adhered to. Science Exchange have been facilitating the Antibody Validation Project which utilises their extensive network of verified labs to provide independent validations and reports for antibodies. On a publishing level, there has been success in improved reporting of antibodies courtesy of the RRID initiative, which allows authors to provide unambiguous identification of an antibody through information on the vendor and the specific catalogue/batch number. And community wise, it is also exciting to see the return of the excellent International Antibody Validation Meeting which brings together scientists from academia, the pharmaceutical/biotech sector and antibody suppliers to discuss best practices in research antibody validation. Unifying all of this knowledge and expertise is something that needs to happen to ensure that the progress being made is greater and more impactful than the small steps that are happening currently.

We encourage you to publish your antibody findings

Through sponsorship, all articles in the antibody validation channel are free of charge to publish until the end of the year. We want to continue to help support the community in making improvements to antibody validation by giving all interested parties the opportunity to openly publish results, share their experimental data and discuss antibodies of interest. The idea being, the more information that is openly available the more we can learn and apprise future efforts in increasing the confidence the scientific community has in commercial antibodies.

Submit today: https://f1000research.com/channels/antibody-validation.