ERBB3 antibody selection for a tumour surface target: epitope and application
These three targets are grouped here because they are bought for the same reason: each is a cell surface antigen under active therapeutic interest, so the catalogue is full of reagents whose descriptions borrow clinical language. What matters when buying one is more ordinary than that, and it is the same for all three: which epitope, which application, and what you will compare the stain against.
- the epitope region a surface stain on intact cells requires
- extracellular
- the grade for anything added to cells or intended for conjugation
- carrier-free
- the authentication guidance the cell lines in the controls owe
- NIH rigor
Figures in this panel are the reagent properties this page says to specify and the authentication guidance the control lines owe, linked in the sources below. They are identifiers, not prices: BioBricks publishes verified prices for synthesis services only, and does not imply a reagent price index it has not measured.
- 4 vendor service pages verifiedevery figure matched verbatim to the vendor's page
- Quoted and dated, never estimatedlast verification pass 2026-08-24
- 1 service classes coveredeach with measured search demand behind it
Specifying the reagent
- Match the epitope to the application. An antibody against the extracellular domain detects the receptor on intact cells by flow cytometry; one against an intracellular region does not, and will only work on permeabilised or lysed material. This is the most common mismatch on surface targets and it is visible on the datasheet.
- Ask whether it blocks, if blocking is the point. Detection and function blocking are different products. A reagent claimed to block should show a dose response in a functional assay; binding data alone does not demonstrate it, and the two are frequently presented side by side.
- Use expression-defined controls, not tissue impressions. A cell line known to express the target strongly and one known not to, run alongside every stain, is what turns an image into evidence. For a surface target these lines are usually available and the control costs one well.
- Quantify receptor density where you will compare lines. The same antibody gives very different apparent staining on cells expressing different amounts of the target, so comparisons between models need a density measurement rather than an impression. Calibrated beads make this straightforward on a cytometer.
- Specify the grade for what it will touch. Carrier-free, low endotoxin and azide-free for anything added to living cells; carrier-free also for anything you intend to conjugate. A general purpose preparation with carrier protein cannot be labelled and should not be added to cells.
Authenticate the control lines, or the controls prove nothing
A positive and a negative line are only controls if they are the lines you think they are. Short tandem repeat profiling and a mycoplasma test on both, recorded with the experiment, is what makes the control set defensible.
Expression in a line also drifts with passage, so re-confirm the positive line's expression periodically rather than trusting a figure from a paper or a catalogue.
Tissue staining against flow cytometry
Flow cytometry measures surface expression per cell on a suspension and gives numbers. Tissue staining shows where the target is in an intact architecture and is far harder to quantify. Most questions about these targets need both at some point.
An antibody validated for one is not thereby validated for the other, because fixation and antigen retrieval change the epitope. Ask for evidence in the specific application rather than a list of applications.
Buying for a programme rather than an experiment
Recombinant reagents with a disclosed sequence stay identical indefinitely and can be reformatted, which is what a multi-year target programme needs. Bank one lot for a study and record it with every experiment.
Check the licensing position before a reagent becomes part of anything commercial. Research use only labelling is a licence restriction as well as a safety notice, and on targets with therapeutic interest it matters.
An fpr2 antibody and a receptor with opposing ligands
FPR2 responds both to inflammatory peptides and to pro-resolving lipids, so an fpr2 antibody reports a receptor whose meaning depends entirely on the ligand present, and the functional readout rather than the stain carries the claim. It is a multipass G protein coupled receptor, so gentle lysis and a membrane preparation apply, and the family's close relative is the cross reactivity to rule out.
An ffar2 antibody and a short chain fatty acid receptor
FFAR2 senses short chain fatty acids from the microbiota and is expressed on immune and gut cells, so an ffar2 antibody is read with the cell type identified rather than alone. Antibodies against this family have a poor specificity record, so knockout validation is the evidence to insist on. Function is measured by calcium or cyclic nucleotide response to a defined agonist.
A ptger2 antibody and a prostaglandin receptor
PTGER2 is one of four receptors for the same prostaglandin with different signalling, so a ptger2 antibody has to be specific within that set for a conclusion to hold. It is a multipass receptor at low abundance, which makes a knockout or overexpression control the practical validation. Pharmacology with subtype selective agonists is what most of this literature actually rests on.
An ltbr antibody and a receptor with two ligands
The lymphotoxin beta receptor binds two ligands and drives lymphoid organisation, so an ltbr antibody is read with the ligand and the tissue context. Agonist and antagonist antibodies against it exist as therapeutic tools, which means a catalogue clone has to state whether it blocks. Surface levels are modest, so conjugate brightness rather than affinity decides a flow cytometry result.
A bace1 antibody and a protease with a processing question
BACE1 is the beta secretase, a membrane aspartic protease that is itself processed and glycosylated, so a bace1 antibody shows a proenzyme and a mature form and the datasheet should name the masses. Its activity is measured with a fluorogenic substrate or by the peptide it produces, not by the blot. Brain tissue is the positive control the literature uses.
A dr5 antibody and an apoptosis inducing receptor
DR5 is a death receptor and agonist antibodies against it have been developed as therapeutics, so a dr5 antibody may be a detection reagent or a functional agonist and the two are different products. Clustering is what triggers signalling, so a secondary crosslinker changes the result. Surface expression does not predict sensitivity, which is why the functional assay accompanies the stain.
A glp-1r antibody and a receptor with a specificity history
The GLP-1 receptor is a therapeutic target whose antibody literature includes widely used clones that did not survive knockout tissue, so a glp-1r antibody should carry that validation explicitly. It is a multipass receptor at low density, and a labelled ligand or a reporter line is what much of the field uses to localise it instead.
Common questions
- Why does my B7H3 antibody not stain the cell surface?
- Most often the epitope is intracellular. Check which region the immunogen came from: an extracellular domain antibody detects intact cells, an intracellular one requires permeabilisation and will look like a failed stain otherwise.
- How do I know an antibody blocks rather than just binds?
- A functional assay with a dose response and a stated potency in a named system. Binding affinity, however good, is not evidence of blocking, and many catalogue entries present the two together.
- What controls does a tumour surface target stain need?
- A line known to express the target and one known not to, stained in the same run at the same settings, plus an isotype control. Those three separate a real result from an impression.
- Can I compare staining intensity between cell lines?
- Only with a receptor density measurement, usually with calibrated beads on a cytometer. Apparent intensity depends on expression level, and comparing lines without quantifying it is how internalisation and efficacy results fail to replicate.
Get a shortlist for your project
Browse by service class
Sources
Cite or embed this figure
The median advertised gene synthesis price per base pair in the US research synthesis services market was $0.11 in August 2026, across 4 verified vendor service pages recorded in BioBricks Synthesis Price Index.
Cite as: "BioBricks Synthesis Price Index", updated 2026-08-24, https://biobricks.org/tumour-surface-target-antibodies/.