Detecting a mark on the nucleic acid rather than on a protein: why a 5mc antibody needs denatured single stranded template before it can bind and why that step is the whole method, what a tet1 antibody and a tet2 antibody report about the enzymes that remove the mark rather than the mark itself, how an ythdc1 antibody, a ythdf1 antibody and a mettl3 antibody read and write an RNA modification whose antibodies are notoriously variable, what an fto antibody adds as an eraser, where an o-glcnac antibody, a sumo antibody, a nedd8 antibody, an acetylated lysine antibody, an anti phosphoserine antibody, an anti-phosphoserine antibody, a phosphoserine antibody, an anti-phosphotyrosine antibody, a phosphorylation antibody, a k48 ubiquitin antibody and a k63 ubiquitin antibody detect a modification across many proteins at once, and why a glutathione antibody, a 4 hne antibody and an 8 ohdg antibody read chemical damage in the same way

Using a modification reagent

1. Make the mark accessible. Marks on double stranded nucleic acid are not available to an antibody until the template is denatured, and marks on folded proteins may need digestion or unfolding. The accessibility step is the method, and skipping it produces a clean negative.
2. Prove specificity against the unmodified template. Run a sample known to lack the modification and, where possible, a synthetic template carrying and lacking it. Without that pair the signal cannot be attributed to the mark.
3. Enrich before detecting where the mark is rare. Most modifications occupy a small fraction of their substrate. Immunoprecipitation with the modification reagent followed by detection of the substrate is frequently the only way to see it.
4. Expect a smear and quantify it as one. A mark present across many proteins or many sites gives a distribution. Integrating a region, with a defined region and a matched control lane, is the honest quantification.
5. Block the erasers at collection. Enzymes that remove these marks stay active in a lysate. Their inhibitors have to be in the buffer before the sample meets it, exactly as for phosphorylation.

Reagents for RNA marks are the least reliable

Antibodies against RNA modifications have a documented history of variable specificity between clones and lots, and several published patterns have not reproduced with orthogonal methods. That is a reason for caution rather than avoidance.

Where a conclusion rests on an RNA modification, confirm with an antibody independent method. Enzymatic or sequencing based approaches exist for the common marks and settle the question.

Global marks and local claims

A modification reagent reports the total across the sample. Claiming that a specific protein or a specific locus carries the mark requires enrichment followed by identification, not a global blot with an arrow.

State what was measured. Global change is a real and interesting observation; it is simply a different claim from site specific modification.

Common questions

Why does my modification stain show nothing?

Usually accessibility. Marks on double stranded nucleic acid need denaturation, and buried protein marks need digestion or unfolding. Add the step before changing reagents.

How is specificity demonstrated?

With a template known to carry the mark and one known to lack it, run side by side, plus a competition with free modified substrate where available. A supplier's dot blot is a starting point, not evidence in your system.

Can these reagents be quantitative?

Relatively, within one experiment with matched controls and a defined integration region. Absolute quantification of a modification by antibody is not reliable, and mass spectrometry is the method when a number is needed.

Browse by service class

• Compare Gene synthesis on advertised prices