Reporting research antibody use: How to increase experimental reproducibility

M Helsby, Joe Fenn, A Chalmers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)
93 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Research antibodies are used in a wide range of bioscience disciplines, yet it is common to hear dissatisfaction amongst researchers with respect to their quality. Although blame is often attributed to the manufacturers, scientists are not doing all they can to help themselves. One example of this is in the reporting of research antibody use. Publications routinely lack key details, including the host species, code number and even the company who supplied the antibody. Authors also fail to demonstrate that validation of the antibodies has taken place. These omissions make it harder for reviewers to establish the likely reliability of the results and for researchers to reproduce the experiments. The scale of this problem, combined with high profile concerns about experimental reproducibility, has caused the Nature Publishing Group to include a section on antibody information in their recent Reporting Checklist for Life Science Articles. In this commentary we consider the issue of reporting research antibody use and ask what details authors should be including in their publications to improve experimental reproducibility.
Original languageEnglish
Article number153 v2
JournalF1000 Research
Volume2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Antibodies
Research
Publications
Research Personnel
Biological Science Disciplines
Checklist
Reproducibility of Results
Industry
Experiments

Cite this

Reporting research antibody use : How to increase experimental reproducibility. / Helsby, M; Fenn, Joe; Chalmers, A.

In: F1000 Research, Vol. 2, 153 v2, 2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0663d6f245824df29b3e6ebaacd720ef,
title = "Reporting research antibody use: How to increase experimental reproducibility",
abstract = "Research antibodies are used in a wide range of bioscience disciplines, yet it is common to hear dissatisfaction amongst researchers with respect to their quality. Although blame is often attributed to the manufacturers, scientists are not doing all they can to help themselves. One example of this is in the reporting of research antibody use. Publications routinely lack key details, including the host species, code number and even the company who supplied the antibody. Authors also fail to demonstrate that validation of the antibodies has taken place. These omissions make it harder for reviewers to establish the likely reliability of the results and for researchers to reproduce the experiments. The scale of this problem, combined with high profile concerns about experimental reproducibility, has caused the Nature Publishing Group to include a section on antibody information in their recent Reporting Checklist for Life Science Articles. In this commentary we consider the issue of reporting research antibody use and ask what details authors should be including in their publications to improve experimental reproducibility.",
author = "M Helsby and Joe Fenn and A Chalmers",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.12688/f1000research.2-153.v2",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
journal = "F1000 Research",
issn = "2046-1402",
publisher = "F1000 Research Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reporting research antibody use

T2 - How to increase experimental reproducibility

AU - Helsby, M

AU - Fenn, Joe

AU - Chalmers, A

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Research antibodies are used in a wide range of bioscience disciplines, yet it is common to hear dissatisfaction amongst researchers with respect to their quality. Although blame is often attributed to the manufacturers, scientists are not doing all they can to help themselves. One example of this is in the reporting of research antibody use. Publications routinely lack key details, including the host species, code number and even the company who supplied the antibody. Authors also fail to demonstrate that validation of the antibodies has taken place. These omissions make it harder for reviewers to establish the likely reliability of the results and for researchers to reproduce the experiments. The scale of this problem, combined with high profile concerns about experimental reproducibility, has caused the Nature Publishing Group to include a section on antibody information in their recent Reporting Checklist for Life Science Articles. In this commentary we consider the issue of reporting research antibody use and ask what details authors should be including in their publications to improve experimental reproducibility.

AB - Research antibodies are used in a wide range of bioscience disciplines, yet it is common to hear dissatisfaction amongst researchers with respect to their quality. Although blame is often attributed to the manufacturers, scientists are not doing all they can to help themselves. One example of this is in the reporting of research antibody use. Publications routinely lack key details, including the host species, code number and even the company who supplied the antibody. Authors also fail to demonstrate that validation of the antibodies has taken place. These omissions make it harder for reviewers to establish the likely reliability of the results and for researchers to reproduce the experiments. The scale of this problem, combined with high profile concerns about experimental reproducibility, has caused the Nature Publishing Group to include a section on antibody information in their recent Reporting Checklist for Life Science Articles. In this commentary we consider the issue of reporting research antibody use and ask what details authors should be including in their publications to improve experimental reproducibility.

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.2-153.v2

U2 - 10.12688/f1000research.2-153.v2

DO - 10.12688/f1000research.2-153.v2

M3 - Article

VL - 2

JO - F1000 Research

JF - F1000 Research

SN - 2046-1402

M1 - 153 v2

ER -