Author
Listed:
- Michael Biddle
- Jemma Cooper
- Katherine Blades
- Dominic Ruddy
- Eva M Krockow
- Harvinder Virk
Abstract
Lack of antibody validation by researchers frequently misdirects biomedical research, yet the ethical consequences—particularly avoidable use of animal and human biological materials—remain unquantified. Using focus groups (n = 12), surveys (n = 107), and systematic analysis of 785 publications, we examined how researchers select and validate antibodies, and quantified the downstream ethical costs. Antibody selection is substantially influenced by social factors such as previous laboratory use and peer recommendations, while systematic evaluation of performance characteristics remains limited. From a dataset of 614 antibodies subjected to rigorous characterisation using knockout controls, 97 (15.8%) failed across all tested applications; we systematically searched for publications linked to these antibodies. Within the 760 publications (those where validation status could be confirmed), only 120 (15.8%) presented any validation evidence—despite 72.0% of surveyed researchers reporting having used at least one recommended validation method. The remaining 640 papers reported a minimum of 8,064 animal samples and 4,424 human tissue samples used with antibodies of demonstrated poor performance and without evidence of fitness for the specific experimental purpose; we describe these as samples at risk of waste. Reserving the term waste for samples used with reagents since withdrawn from sale, and therefore irreproducible, conservative extrapolation gives lower-bound, order-of-magnitude estimates of millions of animal and human tissue samples consumed globally. Researchers identified time, cost, and lack of supervisor support as primary barriers, whilst strongly supporting open data sharing, dedicated validation funding, and publisher requirements as solutions. These findings provide a first quantification of the ethical costs of inadequate antibody validation and highlight the need for coordinated stakeholder interventions to reduce avoidable biological sample waste in biomedical research.Researchers often select antibodies based on previous use or peer recommendations rather than systematic performance assessment. This study shows that poor antibody validation contributes to substantial avoidable consumption of animal and human biological samples, proposing interventions to improve reliability.
Suggested Citation
Michael Biddle & Jemma Cooper & Katherine Blades & Dominic Ruddy & Eva M Krockow & Harvinder Virk, 2026.
"Inadequate antibody validation places substantial numbers of animal and human tissue samples at risk of waste,"
PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 24(10), pages 1-22, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pbio00:3003984
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003984
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3003984. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.