Scaling of an antibody validation procedure enables quantification of antibody performance in major research applications
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Antibodies are critical reagents to detect and characterize proteins. It is commonly understood that many commercial antibodies do not recognize their intended targets, but information on the scope of the problem remains largely anecdotal, and as such, feasibility of the goal of at least one potent and specific antibody targeting each protein in a proteome cannot be assessed. Focusing on antibodies for human proteins, we have scaled a standardized characterization approach using parental and knockout cell lines (Laflamme et al., 2019) to assess the performance of 614 commercial antibodies for 65 neuroscience-related proteins. Side-by-side comparisons of all antibodies against each target, obtained from multiple commercial partners, have demonstrated that: ( i ) more than 50% of all antibodies failed in one or more applications, ( ii ) yet, ~50–75% of the protein set was covered by at least one high-performing antibody, depending on application, suggesting that coverage of human proteins by commercial antibodies is significant; and ( iii ) recombinant antibodies performed better than monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies. The hundreds of underperforming antibodies identified in this study were found to have been used in a large number of published articles, which should raise alarm. Encouragingly, more than half of the underperforming commercial antibodies were reassessed by the manufacturers, and many had alterations to their recommended usage or were removed from the market. This first study helps demonstrate the scale of the antibody specificity problem but also suggests an efficient strategy toward achieving coverage of the human proteome; mine the existing commercial antibody repertoire, and use the data to focus new renewable antibody generation efforts.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many studies indicate that experimental reagents can be wrongly identified in publications.
“many studies now indicate that experimental reagents can be wrongly identified in publications”
From Misspellings or “miscellings”—Non‐verifiable and unknown cell lines in cancer research publications (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 53
- Authors
- Ayoubi, R., Ryan, J., Biddle, M. S., Alshafie, W., Fotouhi, M., Bolivar, S. G., Ruiz Moleon, V., Eckmann, P., Worrall, D., McDowell, I., Southern, K., Reintsch, W., Durcan, T. M., Brown, C., Bandrowski, A., Virk, H., Edwards, A. M., McPherson, P., & Laflamme, C.
- Affiliations
- Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
- Advanced BioImaging Facility (ABIF), McGill University
- University of Leicester (GB)
- Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Structural Genomics Consortium, The Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Structural Genomics Consortium (CA)
- McGill University (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- ORCID
- Venue
- eLife
- Publisher
- eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
- Published
- 2023-11-23
- Volume
- 12
- ISSN
- 2050-084X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4388938958
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 19
- FWCI
- 8.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (U54AG065187, RF1AG057443)
- Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research (18331)
- ALS Society of Canada
- ALS Association
- Motor Neurone Disease Association
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FDN154305)
- Genome Canada (OGI-210)
- Genome Quebec (OGI-210)
- Mitacs (Postdoctoral Fellowship)
- Ontario Genomics (OGI-210)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Advanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- antibody validation, commercial antibodies, antibody specificity, recombinant antibodies, monoclonal antibodies, polyclonal antibodies, knockout cell lines
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review