Sfanos Karen S, Yegnasubramanian Srinivasan, Nelson William G, Lotan Tamara L, Kulac Ibrahim, Hicks Jessica L, Zheng Qizhi, Bieberich Charles J, Haffner Michael C, De Marzo Angelo M
Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Department of Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Asian J Urol. 2019 Jan;6(1):10-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.11.006. Epub 2018 Dec 12.
Antibodies are employed ubiquitously in biomedical sciences, including for diagnostics and therapeutics. One of the most important uses is for immunohistochemical (IHC) staining, a process that has been improving and evolving over decades. IHC is useful when properly employed, yet misuse of the method is widespread and contributes to the "reproducibility crisis" in science. We report some of the common problems encountered with IHC assays, and direct readers to a wealth of literature documenting and providing some solutions to this problem. We also describe a series of vignettes that include our approach to analytical validation of antibodies and IHC assays that have facilitated a number of biological insights into prostate cancer and the refutation of a controversial association of a viral etiology in gliomas. We postulate that a great deal of the problem with lack of accuracy in IHC assays stems from the lack of awareness by researchers for the critical necessity for end-users to validate IHC antibodies and assays in their laboratories, regardless of manufacturer claims or past publications. We suggest that one reason for the pervasive lack of end-user validation for research antibodies is that researchers fail to realize that there are two general classes of antibodies employed in IHC. First, there are antibodies that are "clinical grade" reagents used by pathologists to help render diagnoses that influence patient treatment. Such diagnostic antibodies, which tend to be highly validated prior to clinical implementation, are in the vast minority ( < 500). The other main class of antibodies are "research grade" antibodies (now numbering >3 800 000), which are often not extensively validated prior to commercialization. Given increased awareness of the problem, both the United States, National Institutes of Health and some journals are requiring investigators to provide evidence of specificity of their antibody-based assays.
抗体在生物医学科学中被广泛应用,包括诊断和治疗方面。其中最重要的用途之一是免疫组织化学(IHC)染色,这一过程在过去几十年中不断改进和发展。IHC在正确使用时很有用,但该方法的滥用却很普遍,这也导致了科学领域的“可重复性危机”。我们报告了IHC检测中遇到的一些常见问题,并引导读者查阅大量记录该问题并提供一些解决方案的文献。我们还描述了一系列案例,包括我们对抗体和IHC检测进行分析验证的方法,这些方法有助于深入了解前列腺癌,并驳斥了胶质瘤中病毒病因的一个有争议的关联。我们推测,IHC检测缺乏准确性的很大一部分问题源于研究人员没有意识到终端用户在其实验室中验证IHC抗体和检测的至关重要性,无论制造商的声明或以往的出版物如何。我们认为,研究抗体普遍缺乏终端用户验证的一个原因是研究人员没有意识到IHC中使用的抗体有两大类。第一类是病理学家用于辅助做出影响患者治疗的诊断的“临床级”试剂。这类诊断抗体在临床应用前往往经过高度验证,数量极少(<500种)。另一类主要抗体是“研究级”抗体(目前数量超过380万种),在商业化之前通常没有经过广泛验证。鉴于对该问题的认识不断提高,美国国立卫生研究院和一些期刊都要求研究人员提供基于抗体检测的特异性证据。