Quality Issues of Research Antibodies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Weller MG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4803150 | biostudies-other | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
According to several recent studies, an unexpectedly high number of landmark papers seem to be not reproducible by independent laboratories. Nontherapeutic antibodies used for research, diagnostic, food analytical, environmental, and other purposes play a significant role in this matter. Although some papers have been published offering suggestions to improve the situation, they do not seem to be comprehensive enough to cover the full complexity of this issue. In addition, no obvious improvement ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Histone post-translational modification (PTM) antibodies are essential research reagents in chromatin biology. However, they suffer from variable properties and insufficient documentation of quality. Antibody manufacturers and vendors should provide detailed lot-specific documentation of quality, rendering further quality checks by end-customers unnecessary. A shift from polyclonal antibodies towards sustainable reagents like monoclonal or recombinant antibodies or histone binding domains would help to improve the reproducibility of experimental work in this field.
| S-EPMC4706057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is now widely accepted that HIV-infected individuals remain at a higher risk for mortality and age-related morbidities than the general population, but several unresolved issues need to be addressed by the research community in the coming years to further improve the health of HIV-infected individuals in the modern treatment era.Although recent studies have helped to better define the contribution of HIV to life expectancy and morbidity in the modern antiretroviral therapy (ART) era, questions remain about the generalizability of these findings to a future HIV-infected population that is expected to be much older. Furthermore, although a consensus has emerged that the persistent inflammatory state contributes to morbidity and mortality in this setting, the relative contributions of this process, health-related behaviours, comorbidities and medication toxicities remain incompletely understood. Lastly, significant uncertainty remains over the root causes of the persistent inflammatory state, the specific immunologic pathways to target with interventions and the most appropriate biomarkers to use for surrogate outcomes in pilot trials of immune-based interventions.Each of these issues will be addressed in this review, highlighting recently published and presented studies that inform the discussion, and recommendations will be made for prioritizing the future research agenda.
| S-EPMC4138123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Stem cell research offers great promise for understanding basic mechanisms of human development and differentiation, as well as the hope for new treatments for diseases such as diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease, and myocardial infarction. However, human stem cell (hSC) research also raises sharp ethical and political controversies. The derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines from oocytes and embryos is fraught with disputes about the onset of human personhood. The reprogramming of somatic cells to produce induced pluripotent stem cells avoids the ethical problems specific to embryonic stem cell research. In any hSC research, however, difficult dilemmas arise regarding sensitive downstream research, consent to donate materials for hSC research, early clinical trials of hSC therapies, and oversight of hSC research. These ethical and policy issues need to be discussed along with scientific challenges to ensure that stem cell research is carried out in an ethically appropriate manner. This article provides a critical analysis of these issues and how they are addressed in current policies.
| S-EPMC2726839 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical trial registries have been established as a form of public accountability. Sponsors ought to register their trials promptly and accurately, but this is not always done. Some of the problems include non-registration of trials, registration of trials with incomplete information, and non-reporting of trial results on time. In this study we enumerate or quantify some quality issues with respect to Principal Investigator (PI) and Responsible Party data.MethodsWe analyzed interventional trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Using certain selection criteria, we started with 112,013 records, and then applied further filters. The trial had to (a) start between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2014, (b) include a "drug" or "biological" in the "intervention" field, (c) be registered with an American authority, and (d) list a real person's name as investigator and also his or her role in the study.ResultsWe identified four categories of errors in the ClinicalTrials.gov records. First, some data were missing. The name of the investigator, or his or her role, was missing in 12% of 35,121 trials. In examining 71,359 pairs of names and roles, 17% of the "names" were found to be not those of real persons, but instead junk information. Second, there were variations in a large number of names. We identified 19 categories of variants. We determined that 13% of the names had variants that could not be resolved using a program. Third, some trials listed many PIs each, although only one such person holds overall responsibility for the trial and therefore not more than one person should be listed as PI. Fourth, in examining whether the PI's name was available as part of the Responsible Party tag, we found that in 1221 (3.5%) of 35,121 trials, the Responsible Party tag is absent.ConclusionsWe have outlined four categories of problems with data hosted by ClinicalTrials.gov and have quantified three of them. We also suggest how these errors could be prevented in future. It is important to carry out various kinds of audits of trial registries, in order to identify lacunae in the records, that they be addressed.
| S-EPMC6591874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-quality antibodies (Abs) are critical to neuroscience research, as they remain the primary affinity proteomics reagent used to label and capture endogenously expressed protein targets in the nervous system. As in other fields, neuroscientists are frequently confronted with inaccurate and irreproducible Ab-based results and/or reporting. The UC Davis/NIH NeuroMab Facility was created with the mission of addressing the unmet need for high-quality Abs in neuroscience research by applying a unique approach to generate and validate mouse monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) optimized for use against mammalian brain (i.e., NeuroMabs). Here we describe our methodology of multi-step mAb screening focused on identifying mAbs exhibiting efficacy and specificity in labeling mammalian brain samples. We provide examples from NeuroMab screens, and from the subsequent specialized validation of those selected as NeuroMabs. We highlight the particular challenges and considerations of determining specificity for brain immunolabeling. We also describe why our emphasis on extensive validation of large numbers of candidates by immunoblotting and immunohistochemistry against brain samples is essential for identifying those that exhibit efficacy and specificity in those applications to become NeuroMabs. We describe the special attention given to candidates with less common non-IgG1 IgG subclasses that can facilitate simultaneous multiplex labeling with subclass-specific secondary antibodies. We detail our recent use of recombinant cloning of NeuroMabs as a method to archive all NeuroMabs, to unambiguously define NeuroMabs at the DNA sequence level, and to re-engineer IgG1 NeuroMabs to less common IgG subclasses to facilitate their use in multiplex labeling. Finally, we provide suggestions to facilitate Ab development and use, as to design, execution and interpretation of Ab-based neuroscience experiments. Reproducibility in neuroscience research will improve with enhanced Ab validation, unambiguous identification of Abs used in published experiments, and end user proficiency in Ab-based assays.
| S-EPMC4884554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Auto-antibodies are classically associated with autoimmune diseases, where they are an integral part of diagnostic panels. However, recent evidence is accumulating on the presence of auto-antibodies against single or selected panels of auto-antigens in many types of cancer. Auto-antibodies might initially represent an epiphenomenon derived from the inflammatory environment induced by the tumor. However, their effect on tumor evolution can be crucial, as is discussed in this paper. It has been demonstrated that some of these auto-antibodies can be used for early detection and cancer staging, as well as for monitoring of cancer regression during treatment and follow up. Interestingly, certain auto-antibodies were found to promote cancer progression and metastasis, while others contribute to the body's defense against it. Moreover, auto-antibodies are of a polyclonal nature, which means that often several antibodies are involved in the response to a single tumor antigen. Dissection of these antibody specificities is now possible, allowing their identification at the genetic, structural, and epitope levels. In this review, we report the evidence available on the presence of auto-antibodies in the main cancer types and discuss some of the open issues that still need to be addressed by the research community.
| S-EPMC7919283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is a need for standardized validation methods for antibody specificity and selectivity. Recently, five alternative validation “pillars" were proposed to explore the specificity of research antibodies using methods with no need for prior knowledge about the protein target. Here, we show that these principles can be used in a streamlined manner for enhanced validation of research antibodies in Western blot applications. More than 6,000 antibodies were validated with at least one of these strategies involving orthogonal methods, genetic knockdown, recombinant expression, independent antibodies and migration capture mass spectrometry analysis. The results show a path forward for efforts to validate antibodies in an application-specific manner suitable for both providers and users.
2018-08-21 | PXD010178 | Pride
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11344768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHuman Subjects protections approaches, specifically those relating to research review board oversight, vary throughout the world. While all are designed to protect participants involved in research, the structure and specifics of these institutional review boards (IRBs) can and do differ. This variation affects all types of research, particularly implementation research.MethodsIn 2001, we began a series of inter-related studies on implementing evidence-based collaborative care for depression in Veterans Health Administration primary care. We have submitted more than 100 IRB applications, amendments, and renewals, and in doing so, we have interacted with 13 VA and University IRBs across the United States (U.S.). We present four overarching IRB-related themes encountered throughout the implementation of our projects, and within each theme, identify key challenges and suggest approaches that have proved useful. Where applicable, we showcase process aids developed to assist in resolving a particular IRB challenge.ResultsThere are issues unique to implementation research, as this type of research may not fit within the traditional Human Subjects paradigm used to assess clinical trials. Risks in implementation research are generally related to breaches of confidentiality, rather than health risks associated with traditional clinical trials. The implementation-specific challenges discussed are: external validity considerations, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, risk-benefit issues, the multiple roles of researchers and subjects, and system-level unit of analysis.DiscussionSpecific aspects of implementation research interact with variations in knowledge, procedures, and regulatory interpretations across IRBs to affect the implementation and study of best methods to increase evidence-based practice. Through lack of unambiguous guidelines and local liability concerns, IRBs are often at risk of applying both variable and inappropriate or unnecessary standards to implementation research that are not consistent with the spirit of the Belmont Report (a summary of basic ethical principles identified by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research), and which impede the conduct of evidence-based quality improvement research. While there are promising developments in the IRB community, it is incumbent upon implementation researchers to interact with IRBs in a manner that assists appropriate risk-benefit determinations and helps prevent the process from having a negative impact on efforts to reduce the lag in implementing best practices.
| S-EPMC2276514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, online physician-rating websites have become prominent and exert considerable influence on patients' decisions. However, the quality of these decisions depends on the quality of data that these systems collect. Thus, there is a need to examine the various data quality issues with physician-rating websites.ObjectiveThis study's objective was to identify and categorize the data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites by reviewing the literature on online patient-reported physician ratings and reviews.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in ACM Digital Library, EBSCO, Springer, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The search was limited to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method papers published in the English language from 2001 to 2020.ResultsA total of 423 articles were screened. From these, 49 papers describing 18 unique data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites were included. Using a data quality framework, we classified these issues into the following four categories: intrinsic, contextual, representational, and accessible. Among the papers, 53% (26/49) reported intrinsic data quality errors, 61% (30/49) highlighted contextual data quality issues, 8% (4/49) discussed representational data quality issues, and 27% (13/49) emphasized accessibility data quality. More than half the papers discussed multiple categories of data quality issues.ConclusionsThe results from this review demonstrate the presence of a range of data quality issues. While intrinsic and contextual factors have been well-researched, accessibility and representational issues warrant more attention from researchers, as well as practitioners. In particular, representational factors, such as the impact of inline advertisements and the positioning of positive reviews on the first few pages, are usually deliberate and result from the business model of physician-rating websites. The impact of these factors on data quality has not been addressed adequately and requires further investigation.
| S-EPMC7551103 | biostudies-literature