|
Guest Commentary: Validating antibodies--
The good, the bad and the necessary
February 2017
SHARING OPTIONS:
Despite the fact that antibodies are one of the most frequently used tools in life science and clinical research, there are no universally accepted
guidelines to ensure that they have been properly validated. This is partly due to a lack of systematic rigor on the part of companies supplying antibodies.
Remarketing and reselling antibodies is common practice, but there are no uniform established standards to ensure that the antibodies being sold do what they
are supposed to do—bind specifically to the target under specific conditions.
A 2008 study found that of the
approximately 5,400 antibodies tested from 29 vendors, only about half performed per their intended use.1 Since researchers often test multiple
antibodies before finding the one that best suits their needs, they usually compare antibodies from various suppliers. If suppliers do not carry out rigorous
testing to ensure that their antibodies behave the way they are supposed to, then that responsibility falls on the researcher. The problem is that most of
the time scientists are not aware that the antibodies they are buying have not been tested. So, if their experiments fail, they spend time and effort trying
to optimize their experimental process, not checking whether their antibody could be at fault.
Furthermore, due to
current repackaging practices, which don’t always include proper documentation from the supplier, scientists could purchase the same antibody from two
different suppliers and not even realize it. Hence, in addition to the time and effort wasted testing the same antibody, they are also wasting money. To this
end, antibody industry discussions are trending toward having distinct validation requirements for antibodies used in specific applications. Vendors,
academics and pharma researchers are all invested in improving the standards and are motivated to reach a consensus.2
Overall, the practice of remarketing and reselling antibodies is not the problem. If vendors did their due diligence and
followed a set of standardized validation guidelines to systematically validate the antibodies they sell using specific quantitative measures, the
reproducibility of data and the level of confidence in that data could be elevated.
Issues facing
researchers
Antibody manufacturers often specialize in developing antibodies for particular antigens.
Their goal is to make the best antibody possible. They usually sell to suppliers rather than directly to consumers. This business practice allows researchers
to go to one supplier and search for many different types of antibodies.
Antibody suppliers, in contrast, often
purchase the antibodies they sell rather than manufacture them themselves. They do sell directly to consumers. Sometimes, suppliers simply relabel antibodies
from another manufacturer without adding anything of value, such as validation data or protocols, so there is no way for the user to tell where the antibody
originally came from or how it was tested. This practice is prevalent throughout the antibody market. However, a number of problems have come to light as a
result of this arrangement.
As a result, approximately $350 million
is wasted annually in biomedical research in the U.S. in materials, time and money due to the unreliability of antibodies.3
What can antibody suppliers do
The onus of supplying reliable
antibodies—that is, antibodies that have been tested for their specificity, selectivity and reproducibility—should fall on the supplier.
Suppliers should test their antibodies in-house, using clear, measurable parameters, before selling them, so that they are able to provide researchers with
accurate conditions for use and detailed step-by-step directions.
They should be able to stand behind their
products and provide researchers with proper validation data and, when needed, in-depth troubleshooting tips. Furthermore, by testing every antibody lot,
suppliers will be able to eliminate quality control and reproducibility issues.
One supplier that is working to
improve this process is One World Lab. OWL represents manufacturers and their unique products with transparency to eliminate duplicitous testing of the same
antibodies with different labels. Their system of offering trial-size antibodies enables scientists to make custom panels from the catalogs of multiple
manufacturers and carry out blinded validation studies before deciding which antibody works best for them.
In
addition, OWL helps limit the cost and time associated with validating antibodies by allowing researchers to search OWL’s aggregated catalog using a
variety of filters, including original manufacturer, and by providing researchers with the opportunity to submit their own validation data and share their
protocols/experiences. The contributions in OWL’s review section help to increase the amount of information available for a particular antibody. This
could help other researchers working on similar protein targets and applications, because OWL also allows scientists to buy multiple unique trial-size
antibodies against the same target in order to validate them with this confirmatory approach. These data are shared at the discretion of the scientist.
OWL’s overall goal is to become a liaison and interaction platform for antibody providers and scientists.
What can researchers do
While the responsibility for providing reliable, validated data
should fall on antibody suppliers, researchers have a part to play as well. First, researchers should make sure that validating antibodies is a part of their
experimental process. Though this may seem obvious, a recent survey showed that a third of junior scientists (less than five years of experience) do not
carry out any form of antibody validation.4 Carrying out their own tests is likely to make researchers more willing to question the validity of
their antibodies and demand more from antibody suppliers.
Before making a purchasing decision, researchers should
be aware of the potential issues that exist and do their due diligence by evaluating the antibody information/data provided by suppliers. Even if some
suppliers don’t provide their own validation data, they could provide validation data from the original manufacturer.
By reviewing and comparing this information with vendors who do provide detailed protocols and data, researchers will at least be able to tell if
they are purchasing the same antibody from different suppliers, which might help mitigate some of the time and cost of their antibody validation process.
Furthermore, researchers could push back and insist on receiving validation data and protocols from suppliers prior to purchasing antibodies and avoid
vendors that don’t offer these data, which could save those researchers time, money and a lot of headaches.
Additionally, discourse about antibody validation is ongoing, so researchers should keep up to date with key information, which could help them find
antibodies that deliver results and, more importantly, avoid antibodies that are known to fail. One method that has been suggested for this is a scoring
system based on antibody quality and reliability.5
Another way that researchers could help the process
is by raising awareness of the issues that currently exist and by getting involved. A lot of information about lack of antibody specificity has come to light
over the past 15 years. A number of proposals have been put forward6,7 and some portals established, including Antibodypedia8 and
EuroMAbNet9, to try and find some way to formulate standards and guidelines for antibody validation practices. A recent antibody validation summit
presented by the Global Biological Standards Institute and The Antibody Society brought together academics, pharma researchers, antibody vendors, funding
agencies and journals in an effort to develop standards, policies and practices for antibody validation. In addition, OWL is a portal where scientists who
have validated antibodies can share their data, protocols and tips/tricks with others looking for antibodies to the same target protein or for similar
applications.
Conclusion
Remarketing and reselling
antibodies is common practice and isn’t going away anytime soon. In order to mitigate the issues that have arisen due to this practice, it is vital
that suppliers take ownership of the antibodies they are selling and validate them themselves instead of relying on data from the original
manufacturer.
In addition, it is important for researchers to realize that the antibodies they use are not always
validated and to start demanding such information from suppliers. Also, using available resources to acquire third-party validation data can provide the
crowdsourced characterization necessary to cull bad antibodies and highlight good ones.
Antibodies are essential
to the life-sciences and clinical research fields. Suppliers and researchers are going to have to work together to ensure that the research being carried out
is trustworthy and is helping to improve overall data quality.
Three authors contributed to this guest commentary: Dr. Gunjan Choudhary, Michael Simson and Dr. Poulomi Acharya. Choudhary is a science writer and technical editor at Bio-Rad Laboratories. Simson is the founder and CEO of One World Lab Inc., a distributor of antibodies and reagents. Poulomi Acharya is the senior global product manager for antibodies and related
products at Bio-Rad Laboratories.
References
Back |
Home |
FAQs |
Search |
Submit News Release |
Site Map |
About Us |
Advertising |
Resources |
Contact Us |
Terms & Conditions |
Privacy Policy
|