Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28713558›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2017

The ABCs of finding a good antibody: How to find a good antibody, validate it, and publish meaningful data.

Poulomi Acharya, Anna Quinlan, Veronique Neumeister

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Multiplex, multimodal mapping of variant effects in secreted proteins.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Double Labeling Fluorescent Immunocytochemistry.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. PCSK2 expression in neuroendocrine tumors points to a midgut, pulmonary, or pheochromocytoma-paraganglioma origin.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2020
    Article
  16. Antibody validation for Western blot: By the user, for the user.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2020
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Poulomi AcharyaBio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA, 94547, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2480-7445
Anna QuinlanBio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA, 94547, USA.
Veronique NeumeisterDepartment of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Finding an antibody that works for a specific application can be a difficult task. Hundreds of vendors offer millions of antibodies, but the quality of these products and available validation information varies greatly. In addition, several studies have called into question the reliability of published data as the primary metric for assessing antibody quality. We briefly discuss the antibody quality problem and provide best practice guidelines for selecting and validating an antibody, as well as for publishing data generated using antibodies.

Indexed as

antibody qualityantibody validationimmunohistochemistryprimary antibodiesreproducibility crisiswestern blotting antibodies

Identifiers

PMID28713558
PMCPMC5499787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.