Choosing tumour suppressor and DNA damage antibodies: why an rb1 antibody must distinguish the phosphorylated from the unphosphorylated protein, what a cdkn2a antibody reports that a transcript does not, how a 53bp1 antibody is read as foci rather than as a level, and the loss-of-expression controls each needs

Reading each one correctly

1. Read RB1 as a phosphorylation state, not an amount. The protein is active when hypophosphorylated and inactivated by phosphorylation through the cycle, so a total antibody reports presence while a phospho-specific reagent reports the state that matters. Say which you used and at which residue, because the two support different conclusions.
2. Treat loss of expression as the hardest claim to make. Showing a protein is absent requires an antibody that would certainly have detected it, which means a positive control on the same slide or membrane and, ideally, a graded series. An absent band on a blot with no positive lane demonstrates nothing about the sample.
3. Count DNA damage markers as foci, not as intensity. Damage response proteins concentrate into discrete nuclear foci at break sites, so the readout is foci per nucleus over time. Total nuclear intensity averages the signal away and is the commonest way a damage experiment reports nothing.
4. Include an inducer and a time course. A known damaging treatment produces foci that appear and then resolve, which demonstrates the assay works and gives the kinetics that are usually the interesting result. Without an inducer, an absence of foci is uninterpretable.
5. Use an isogenic null where the biology allows. For loss-of-function claims, a line known to lack the protein run alongside is the strongest available control, and for these genes such lines are widely available. It settles in one lane what an isotype control cannot.

Fixation and retrieval for nuclear targets

These are nuclear proteins and most need heat induced retrieval on fixed tissue. Test citrate near pH six against a Tris buffer near pH nine on a known positive, because the right condition differs between them and inheriting a protocol wastes weeks.

For foci counting, section thickness and imaging plane matter: a focus split across the top of a section is counted differently from one in the middle. Fix the acquisition and the counting rule before the cohort.

Quantifying without overreaching

Scoring loss in tissue as present or absent needs a defined threshold set on control material and applied blind. Thresholds chosen after seeing the cohort are the commonest reason a marker association does not replicate.

Where possible, include an internal positive control within the same section: stroma or infiltrating cells that should retain the protein make an absent tumour signal far more convincing than an adjacent control slide.

Common questions

Total or phospho-specific for RB1?

Phospho-specific if the question is about the protein's activity, because it is inactivated by phosphorylation rather than by degradation. A total antibody answers whether the protein is present, which is a different and usually easier question.

How do I show a tumour suppressor is lost?

With a positive control that would certainly have been detected, on the same membrane or slide, and preferably an isogenic null as a negative. Absence of signal in isolation is not evidence of absence of protein.

Why does my DNA damage stain look like nothing happened?

Almost always because the readout was total nuclear intensity rather than foci. These proteins concentrate at break sites, so count discrete foci per nucleus and run a time course after a known inducer.

Does a transcript measurement substitute?

Not for these. Loss frequently happens by deletion, by promoter methylation or by protein destabilisation, and transcript and protein disagree often enough that the protein measurement is the one that supports the claim.

Browse by service class

• Compare Gene synthesis on advertised prices