What Can We Do to Make Your Work Easier? Addressing the Challenges of Working with Primary Antibodies

Scientific progress is iterative. Small advances and bits and pieces of knowledge are accumulated over time with each advance depending on the body of work that has preceded it. Being able to replicate the work from one step to another in this march of science is critical, and it is not easy. We all recognize that a well-documented procedure goes a long way toward enabling reproducibility, but the procedure is not the only hurdle to reproducibility, and it’s not even the main one.

Artistic Image of Hibit Tag

Many of the reagents researchers use are derived from or produced by living organisms. A decade ago, in 2015, an analysis of preclinical research estimated that irreproducibility costs the U.S. around $28 billion a year. When the authors traced the causes, the largest single category wasn’t study design or data analysis. It was biological reagents and reference materials (1).

When Bill Linton first developed the idea of a company that supports scientists in the 1970s, his question was: “What can we do to make your work easier?” The answer he kept getting was the same: researchers wished they could buy reliable restriction enzymes instead of purifying their own for every experiment. It would reduce variability and enable them to focus on the interesting biological questions rather than the requisite protein isolations needed to ask those questions.

Biotechnology and life science research have come a long way since then. We now take reliable, commercially available restriction enzymes for granted. Still, Promega keeps asking Bill’s original question: What can we do to make your work easier? The answers to that question have led to ground-breaking luciferase reporter technology, add-mix-measure assays for everything from cell viability to P450 activity to NADP/H detection, and standardized thaw-and-use primary cell lines for bioassays.

Today’s Difficult Reagent: Primary Antibodies

Among the most difficult reagents to work with and standardize are antibodies. If you are generating polyclonal primary antibodies that are not commercially available to study your target protein, you first need to find an animal with clean pre-immune serum. Usually that serum is evaluated by Western blot, which itself is an inherently fussy technique. And polyclonal antibodies are just that—polyclonal. What is generated after exposure to your antigen is a mixture of antibodies, and the composition of the mixture can change over time as the animal’s immune response matures. This gives you batch-to-batch variability and can make reproducibility more difficult. Commercially produced polyclonal antibodies are subject to the same exact issues. In August 2026, a news article in Nature reported that a metascientist had released a database of more than 18,000 questionable validation images across the catalogs of 15 antibody suppliers. All reflect the antibodies may not be performing like the scientists expect (Garisto 2026). Additionally, production of antibodies requires animal resources. High-quality, application validated antibodies are expensive as well. Using primary antibodies to study proteins is a significant pain point for the bench scientist.

It’s Not Just the Antibodies. It’s the Western Blots Too.

Tagged proteins or high-abundance exogenous expression of a target protein will not always reflect the endogenous protein behavior, localization or function. Large tags can interfere with folding and function; over expression of a protein can produce false protein interactions. Your results could be showing you artifacts resulting from a situation in your cells that is simply not biologically relevant.

If you are studying your target proteins (and other molecules) using Western blotting, post-translational modifications such as phosphorylation, ubiquitination, and cleavage shifts can complicate the interpretation of your results. Multiple bands on a blot can be hard to understand—is the protein cleaved? Is there cross-reactivity with your antibody to another protein? Is your sample degraded?

Continue reading “What Can We Do to Make Your Work Easier? Addressing the Challenges of Working with Primary Antibodies”

New Approach Methodologies: Guidelines for Biological Ground Truths

FDA Regulation changes: The Problem is still Validation

In March 2026, the FDA published draft guidance that fundamentally changed how NAMs (New Approach Methodologies) are evaluated in drug development. If you’re designing NAMs, whether that be spheroids, organoids, or organs-on-a-chip, your model now must meet specific validation criteria set by regulators. This draft document, titled ‘General Considerations for the Use of New Approach Methodologies in Drug Development’ provides requirements on the use of NAMs, including in vitro, in silico and in chemico methods (FDA & CDER, 2026). This guidance is a big shift from aspirational recommendations towards clearer regulatory recommendations.

It comes on the coattails of consistent feedback and challenges the market has seen over the past few years as they attempt to transition and optimize away from animal models. Mainly being:

“How can I be sure the data I get from this non-animal model is reliable, trustworthy and relevant?”

This regulatory mandate from the FDA requires researchers to use models and assays that meet four validation criteria:

  • Context of use
  • Human biological relevance
  • Technical characterization
  • Fit-for-purpose

This guidance initially applies to antibody development, biologics, and will eventually be relevant for small molecules. The momentum in the market is sound and indicates that there is a real need for assays that meet these new requirements.

Continue reading “New Approach Methodologies: Guidelines for Biological Ground Truths”

CRISPR/Cas9 Knock-In Tagging: Simplifying the Study of Endogenous Biology

Understanding the expression, function and dynamics of proteins in their native environment is a fundamental goal that’s common to diverse aspects of molecular and cell biology. To study a protein, it must first be labeled—either directly or indirectly—with a “tag” that allows specific and sensitive detection.

Using a labeled antibody to the protein of interest is a common method to study native proteins. However, antibody-based assays, such as ELISAs and Western blots, are not suitable for use in live cells. These techniques are also limited by throughput and sensitivity. Further, suitable antibodies may not be available for the target protein of interest.

Continue reading “CRISPR/Cas9 Knock-In Tagging: Simplifying the Study of Endogenous Biology”