Inadequate antibody validation places substantial numbers of animal and human tissue samples at risk of waste

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 Reserving the term waste for samples used with reagents since withdrawn from sale, and therefore irreproducible, conservative extrapolation gives lower-bound, order-of-magnitude estimates of millions of animal and human tissue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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS Biology
Published
2026-10-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003984
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Animal testing and alternatives
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.55
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Inadequate antibody validation places substantial numbers of animal and human tissue samples at risk of waste

Michael Biddle, Eva Maria Krockow, Harvinder S Virk, Jemma Cooper et al.
1 citations
PLoS Biology
Animal testing and alternatives
7.55
article

Inadequate antibody validation places substantial numbers of animal and human tissue samples at risk of waste

Michael Biddle, Eva Maria Krockow, Harvinder S Virk, Jemma Cooper, Dominic Ruddy, Katherine Blades
article en
1 citations

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.

PLoS BiologyVol. 24(10)
University of Leicester (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Animal testing and alternatives
7.55
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.