For the best experience on the Abcam website please upgrade to a modern browser such as Google Chrome
I've looked at the papers and it seems very hard to know what is going on. The data in Kia et al., 2008 looks good since they do show the %IP (around 0.2 to 0.4), which seem to be reasonable numbers. They also have good controls etc. The Bedadala paper is hard to judge, since there is only one figure (Fig. 5A), where a band is there upon induction but not without. It is hard to know what the %IP is, since they don't quantify their ChIP. Kia was done in human cells, and Bedadala in mouse, I did my ChIP in mouse. Maybe it works better in human cells……
I'm not sure you are familiar with ChIP but the problem is often how to know whether there is a signal or not. IgG controls are almost always lower, and unless you have a positive control or a knockdown where the signal disappears it is very hard to judge. However, antibodies are coming under more and more scrutiny and as a provider of high grade antibodies it must be in your interest to serve the community. I have used your histone, and histone modification antibodies in the past and they seem to work fine.
It would be very helpful, if you indicated in your antibody descriptions where the data came from so that one could easily see, whether it came from in house experiments or from the literature. I did not find that information easily, although it probably would not have helped either. And I would feel much more comfortable if AbCam performed ChIP verification themselves, before an antibody was advertised as ChIP-grade. Otherwise the scientific community does the QC and pays for it too.
Asked on Oct 23 2012
Thanks so much for your email. I will certainly pass your comments along. In addition, please note that your comments will appear under the 'Scientific Support' tab on the online product datasheet for ab4081.
I hope you were able to submit your review successfully. Please contact me if you have any further comments or questions.
Answered on Oct 23 2012