We at The Science Advisory Board recognize that scientific customers can exhibit remarkable brand loyalty. When we explored the antibody market in 2012, our members explained they make research antibody purchases based on “previous experience with the brand” and “colleague/coworker’s recommendations” as the most important selections overall. We asked over 1,000 members in 2017, “How IMPORTANT are the following considerations when evaluating whether to purchase antibodies from [your primary supplier] before making a purchase decision?” This year, the picture has changed and we are noticing new trends in the industry.

The Importance of Validation

Antibody validation documentation has become the most important factor driving a decision. It is imperative that research antibodies sold are tested for specificity and come validated for lab applications. One researcher told us:

“The antibodies that are sold must be tested on specificity of target binding – it just must not be possible to buy an antibody and then having to check if it REALLY is specific! I did this for instance for the antibody against transcription factor ThPok (that is still being sold at this moment!) – it is NOT specific to the antigen. If I had not checked I would have published something based on the assumption that I am really seeing ThPok expression (which it wasn’t). The companies NEED and HAVE to do this.”

Another scientists points to the need for suppliers to disclose underlying manufacturing processes that some companies might consider trade secrets:

“Don’t buy antibodies where manufacturers do not disclose or under-characterize immunizing agent. Understanding how the specificity is determined and ability to reproduce this. Reproducible immunostaining is very important, and characterization and use of the most specific antibodies possible will lead to best publication and research results.”

One scientist puts the burden of validation squarely on the shoulders of industry:

“The problem is that it is unlikely that it would be an affordable practice for most researchers that are grant funded as they are short on time and money to validate, therefore, the best option is for the antibodies to come pre-validated for specific applications.”

The Scientific Advisory Board attracts the participation of scientists from diverse disciplines and regions. It is likely that any one of our members could agree with one or even all of these attitudes.

The Growing Importance of Online Reviews

n 2017, we found online reviews of antibody performance have an “equal weight” when compared to information provided on supplier websites. Our members recognize the growing number of platforms where scientists share information on experiences with past antibodies and rate their performance. The increasing use of online resources will continue to raise awareness of newer, and higher performing antibodies.

As seen in the issue of validation, our members had a lot to say in regards to the growing importance of online reviews. One wrote:

“I believe that researchers can use databases to show their results that are outside of the antibody company’s direct control. One such database that I use to help prioritize antibodies is the citeab website. This website allows me to view actual publications to each P/N for the database. I believe that this database would also help by showing individuals which antibodies provided by some of the bigger companies (e.g. Abcam, Sigma, etc.) are actually manufactured by smaller companies (i.e. Everest) and then remarked and resold.”

Not all respondents seem to be aware of the many online resources that do exist:

“We need a non-biased database with actual investigator derived data that includes results, methodology and supplier/target information to demonstrate that an Ab does/does not work. Many times we have bought Abs that the supplier claims will work in a particular application or recognize a single form of a protein to find that this is not true!”

“{There is a need for} an open unbiased process to discuss/resolve conflicting data (e.g. when a big lab publishes with an antibody and subsequent validation attempts show that the antibody does not work as advertised, many scientists would not dare to make such controversial results public.”

“There needs to be a repository of data that comes back from the lab bench with experimental results and protocol used. This is truly the only way to effectively characterize antibodies. It is too costly for manufacturers to validate antibodies in all applications and sample types. Yes, manufacturers must do some basic validation to ensure product performance, but we will go further faster with crowd-sourced validation. It is akin to agile methodology in product development. It is the most effective way to iterate on quality.”

Some scientists think societies and publishers must play a role:

“Antibodies need to clearly state species, clonally, defined epitope and publishers must require supplier and catalogue numbers as well as lot numbers so a repeat experiment can be undertaken using exactly the same reagents.”

“Thorough methodologies including, antibody catalogue and lot numbers, need to be published in journals. Researchers on journal boards need to demand that their journals allow sufficient space within manuscript word limits to accommodate this and reviewers should demand full images of the antibody validation checks (e.g. uncropped western lanes) to be included in the manuscripts. However, suppliers need to understand that researchers must do this because THE ANTIBODY PRODUCERS AND SUPPLIERS are selling products that are not fit for purpose. 80% of the problem of irreproducibility is caused by the supplier and THEY must change THEIR practice to ensure that good antibodies are actually available in the first place rather than rely on the buyer to pay for the supplier’s incompetence.”

We at The Science Advisory Board are intrigued to see what the future holds for research antibodies. Let us know what you think about the future of research antibodies in the comments below!