Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30297845›Full record

ArticleNature communications2018

Enhanced validation of antibodies for research applications.

Fredrik Edfors, Andreas Hober, Klas Linderbäck, Gianluca Maddalo, Alireza Azimi, Åsa Sivertsson, Hanna Tegel, Sophia Hober, Cristina Al-Khalili Szigyarto, Linn Fagerberg and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing 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

63 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Fredrik EdforsScience for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-171 21, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0017-7987
Andreas HoberScience for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-171 21, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8947-2562
Klas LinderbäckDepartment of Protein Science, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gianluca MaddaloScience for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-171 21, Stockholm, Sweden.
Alireza AzimiDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, SE-171 77, Sweden.
Åsa SivertssonScience for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-171 21, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hanna TegelDepartment of Protein Science, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7067-9173
Sophia HoberDepartment of Protein Science, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.
Cristina Al-Khalili SzigyartoScience for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-171 21, Stockholm, Sweden.
Linn FagerbergScience for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-171 21, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0198-7137
Kalle von FeilitzenScience for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-171 21, Stockholm, Sweden.
Per OksvoldScience for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-171 21, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3014-5502
Cecilia LindskogDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SE-751 85, Sweden.
Björn ForsströmScience for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-171 21, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5248-8568
Mathias UhlenScience for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, SE-171 21, Stockholm, Sweden. mathias.uhlen@scilifelab.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4858-8056

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a need for standardized validation methods for antibody specificity and selectivity. Recently, five alternative validation pillars were proposed to explore the specificity of research antibodies using methods with no need for prior knowledge about the protein target. Here, we show that these principles can be used in a streamlined manner for enhanced validation of research antibodies in Western blot applications. More than 6,000 antibodies were validated with at least one of these strategies involving orthogonal methods, genetic knockdown, recombinant expression, independent antibodies, and capture mass spectrometry analysis. The results show a path forward for efforts to validate antibodies in an application-specific manner suitable for both providers and users.

Indexed as

Validation Studies as TopicAnimalsAntibodiesAntibody SpecificityBlotting, WesternHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsAntibodies

Identifiers

PMID30297845
PMCPMC6175901

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.