Housekeeping gene western blot controls: choosing one that is actually invariant

Choosing and validating a control

1. Verify invariance in your own system. The standard housekeeping proteins vary with cell cycle, confluence, hypoxia, differentiation and many treatments. Before adopting one, run your treatment series and confirm the candidate does not change. Inheriting a control from a published paper in a different system is how normalisation goes wrong quietly.
2. Match the abundance to the target. A control far more abundant than the target saturates at exposures where the target is barely visible, so the two cannot be quantified on the same blot. Choose a control of comparable abundance, or image the two separately with appropriate exposures.
3. Check the molecular weight separation. The control must resolve clearly from the target and from any non-specific band. A control running close to the target complicates stripping, reprobing and multiplexed detection.
4. Stay inside the linear range. Densitometry is only meaningful where signal is proportional to protein, and film and bright bands both saturate. Run a loading series once to establish the linear range for both target and control, and work inside it.
5. Consider total protein normalisation. Staining the membrane for total protein normalises to everything loaded rather than to one protein that may itself respond. It avoids the invariance problem entirely and has become the preferred approach where the target's abundance allows it.

When a GAPDH antibody misleads: treatments that move housekeeping controls

Treatments that alter metabolism, cytoskeleton, proliferation or differentiation are precisely the treatments that move the conventional controls, and those are also the treatments laboratories study most. The result is a normalisation that removes part of the effect or manufactures one.

Where a control does move with treatment, the honest options are to change control, move to total protein normalisation, or report unnormalised data with the loading shown. Choosing the control that gives the expected answer is not among them.

Practical detection points

Multiplexed fluorescent detection lets target and control be imaged in separate channels on one blot, which avoids stripping and reprobing and generally gives cleaner quantitation than chemiluminescence with film.

Whichever detection is used, record exposures and keep the raw images. Quantitation from a figure-ready image with adjusted contrast is not quantitation.

A nitrocellulose membrane western blot, and what it suits

Nitrocellulose binds protein through hydrophobic interaction, gives a low background with most blockers and needs no wetting step, which makes it the default for chemiluminescent detection and for anything where a clean film matters more than capacity. It is brittle once dry and does not survive stripping well, so a membrane that will be reprobed or stored goes onto PVDF instead. Pore size follows the target, with 0.2 micrometres for small proteins that pass straight through the standard 0.45. Handle it wet and with forceps, since a crease is a permanent line on the film.

western blot alternatives, and what each gives up

Several methods answer the question a blot answers, and each trades something. A capillary or automated immunoassay runs the same antibodies with far better reproducibility and no gel, at a higher cost per sample. An ELISA quantifies properly but loses the molecular weight information that tells you the band is the right protein. Mass spectrometry identifies and quantifies without an antibody at all, and needs a facility. Immunofluorescence keeps spatial information and quantifies poorly. The blot survives because it reports size and abundance together on cheap equipment, which nothing else quite does.

bsa western blot use, and where milk is better

Albumin and milk are the two standard blockers and the choice follows the probe rather than the protein. Albumin is required for a phospho-specific antibody, because milk carries casein, which is itself a phosphoprotein, and for streptavidin detection, because milk carries biotin. Milk blocks more completely and more cheaply, so it gives lower backgrounds everywhere those two do not apply. Whichever is used, the same blocker goes into the antibody dilution, the grade matters since a fraction V albumin carries immunoglobulins a secondary will find, and the choice is recorded with the blot.

phospho rb, and reading a switch on a blot

phospho rb reports the phosphorylation of the retinoblastoma protein, which releases its brake on the cell cycle, so the information is in the ratio of phosphorylated to total rather than in either alone. The residue matters, since the protein carries many sites phosphorylated by different kinases at different points.

Common questions

Which housekeeping gene should I use as a western blot control?

One you have shown does not change under your treatment, at an abundance comparable to your target and resolving clearly from it. The conventional choices all vary under common conditions, so the validation matters more than the choice.

Is total protein normalisation better?

Often, because it normalises to everything loaded rather than to one protein that may itself respond to the treatment. It avoids the invariance problem and is generally preferred where the target's abundance allows.

Why does a beta actin antibody band look identical in every lane?

Frequently because it is saturated. A highly abundant control imaged at an exposure suited to a faint target will look uniform regardless of loading, which makes it useless as a control.

How do I know I am in the linear range?

Run a loading series once for both target and control and find where signal stops being proportional to protein. Quantify only inside that range.

Browse by service class

• Compare Gene synthesis on advertised prices