Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41563121›Full record

ArticleJournal of microscopy2026

Single-molecule validation and optimised protocols for the use of secondary nanobodies in multiplexed immunoassays.

Rebecca Saleeb, Judi O'Shaughnessy, Ryan Ferguson, Candace T Adams, Mathew H Horrocks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Rebecca SaleebEaStCHEM School of Chemistry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6587-9867
Judi O'ShaughnessyEaStCHEM School of Chemistry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ryan FergusonEaStCHEM School of Chemistry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Candace T AdamsEaStCHEM School of Chemistry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Mathew H HorrocksEaStCHEM School of Chemistry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5495-5492

Funding

AMED-MRC MR/X021564/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M010996/1Motor Neurone Disease Association Saleeb/Oct22/980-799NIH HHS 5-r01-NS127186-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently developed secondary nanobodies or single-domain antibodies present a powerful tool for immunodetection. Unlike traditional antibodies, their monovalence enables pre-association with primary antibodies prior to sample staining, presenting a straightforward affinity-based antibody labelling solution. This not only simplifies and streamlines immunoassays, it also supports multiplexed techniques where conflicts in the species of the desired primary antibodies preclude standard indirect immunostaining. Despite these advantages, the use of secondary nanobodies remains sparse, due perhaps to a lack of evaluation on their suitability for assays requiring quantification and an assessment of optimal protocols for their use. Here, we propose a set of experiments spanning total internal reflection fluorescence and confocal microscopies that can be used to validate secondary nanobody binding, specificity, and their propensity for mis-targeted binding in multiplex assays. Using these tools, we analysed the binding properties of commercially available secondary nanobodies and outline optimised protocols for their robust use.

Indexed as

Single-Domain AntibodiesSingle Molecule ImagingAnimalsHumansImmunoassayMicroscopy, ConfocalStaining and LabelingSingle-Domain Antibodiesimmunoassayimmunofluorescencemultiplexnanobodysingle‐domain antibody

Identifiers

PMID41563121
PMCPMC12946855

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.