MUC16 antibody and antibodies against structurally difficult targets

Choosing for a difficult target

1. Identify the obstacle before the reagent. Glycan masking, membrane anchoring, low abundance, high background from an abundant relative and localisation that fixation destroys are different problems. Naming yours narrows the reagent list immediately.
2. Read the immunogen against the structure. For repeat containing and heavily modified proteins, where the immunogen sits determines whether the epitope is accessible in your preparation. A datasheet naming only the protein is not enough.
3. Match extraction to where the target lives. Membrane anchored and matrix associated proteins need extraction conditions a standard lysis buffer does not provide. A target that appears absent is frequently a target left in the pellet.
4. Choose fixation for the epitope and the structure. Some structures survive only in particular fixation, and cross linking masks epitopes that then need retrieval. This is where most immunostaining of difficult targets fails and where a pilot on a positive control tissue pays for itself.
5. Use a tagged construct as the validation shortcut. Where the biology allows, expressing a tagged version and detecting the tag gives a clean positive control and calibrates what a real signal looks like. It is the cheapest validation available.
6. Demand reduction evidence. Knockout, knockdown or a tissue known to lack the target is what distinguishes a validated reagent from a sold one. Where the supplier has none, generate it yourself once and keep the image with the reagent record.

Validated for what, exactly

A reagent validated for denatured protein on a membrane may be useless on a fixed section, and one validated on an overexpressing cell line may not see endogenous levels. The application and the abundance are both part of the claim.

Read what was actually shown rather than which applications are listed. Listed applications are frequently aspirational; the images in the datasheet are evidence.

Two reagents beat one

Where a conclusion rests on the presence or distribution of a protein, two independent antibodies against different epitopes agreeing is far stronger than one antibody with a good datasheet. Disagreement between them is equally informative and worth knowing early.

It costs one extra reagent and one extra experiment, and it removes the most common criticism of this kind of result.

A steap1 antibody and a target with a narrow normal range

STEAP1 is a multipass membrane protein restricted in normal tissue and re-expressed in prostate cancer, which is what makes it a target and what makes a steap1 antibody hard to validate, since most normal controls are negative by design. Surface work needs a clone validated on unpermeabilised cells, and a positive and a negative line from the same panel are the minimum evidence.

A dpp4 antibody and an enzyme that is also a surface marker

DPP4 is CD26, a surface protease read both as a lineage marker and as a drug target, so a dpp4 antibody may be sold under either name and searching one hides part of the market. Antigen and activity are different measurements, and a catalogue antibody reports the protein while a substrate assay reports the enzyme. A shed soluble form exists in plasma.

A cd99 antibody and the tumour it is read in

CD99 is a small heavily glycosylated surface protein used in pathology as part of a panel rather than alone, and a cd99 antibody is judged by membrane staining with a known positive on the same slide. Its apparent mass moves with glycosylation, so the datasheet's own blot is the reference. Because expression is broad, the panel and the expected negative are what carry the inference.

An l1cam antibody and the fragments shedding produces

L1CAM is cleaved to release a large extracellular fragment, so an l1cam antibody against that region may report shed protein in medium as well as cells, while one against the cytoplasmic tail reports only the membrane form. The epitope position therefore decides the experiment. It is glycosylated and large, so the expected mass and the transfer conditions belong in the method.

A cxcr4 antibody and a receptor that internalises

CXCR4 leaves the surface within minutes of meeting its ligand, so a cxcr4 antibody reads low in exactly the condition an experiment is testing, and the serum in the medium is enough to start that. Time on ice and a stated handling protocol are part of the measurement. For blocking work the clone has to be stated as antagonist, which is a separate validation from detection.

A mesothelin antibody and the soluble peptide beside it

Mesothelin is cleaved, leaving a membrane bound fragment and a soluble related peptide measured in serum, so a mesothelin antibody has to say which it detects. A clinical figure usually rests on the soluble assay with a stated calibration, while a section rests on membrane staining. For a therapeutic target the epitope has to survive on the retained fragment rather than leave with the shed one.

A caix antibody and the hypoxia it reports

Carbonic anhydrase IX is induced by hypoxia, so a caix antibody reports an oxygen history rather than a fixed property, and a cell culture experiment has to state the oxygen tension and the duration. In tissue the stain is membranous and often perinecrotic, which is the pattern that says it is real. A normoxic control on the same blot is what makes an induction claim measurable.

A claudin 18 antibody and the splice form that is the target

The therapeutic interest is in one splice variant of claudin 18 rather than the gene, so a claudin 18 antibody has to state which isoform its epitope lies in, and a pan reactive clone is useless for that question. It is a multipass tight junction protein, so gentle lysis and no boiling apply, and junctional staining between cells is the pattern rather than diffuse membrane.

Common questions

Why does an antibody fail on a glycosylated target?

Because the glycan physically blocks the peptide epitope in the native protein, even though the immunogen worked. Reagents raised against accessible regions or against the glycan itself, and deglycosylation controls, are the routes around it.

Is a tag antibody a substitute for a target antibody?

Only for the tagged construct, and it says nothing about the endogenous protein. It is extremely useful as a positive control and as a calibration of what real signal looks like.

How much validation is enough?

Enough that someone else would believe the signal is the target: a reduction control, an appropriate positive and negative sample, and consistency between two independent reagents where the conclusion depends on it.

What if no validated reagent exists?

Say so in the write up and choose a design that does not depend on the antibody alone, for example a tagged construct, a genetic readout or mass spectrometry. An unvalidated reagent presented as validated is the worse option.

Browse by service class

• Compare Gene synthesis on advertised prices