Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
For cleaner and more robust results in multiplexing applications, each mouse monoclonal antibody should be detected with its respective IgG subclass-specific secondary antibody rather than a general anti-mouse IgG-specific secondary antibody.
Simultaneous labeling of multiple targets in a single sample, or multiplexing, is a powerful approach to directly compare the amount, localization and/or molecular properties of different targets in the same sample. Here we highlight the robust reliability of the simultaneous use of multiple mouse monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) of different immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclasses in a wide variety of multiplexing applications employing anti-mouse IgG subclass-specific secondary antibodies (2°Abs). We also describe the unexpected finding that IgG subclass-specific 2°Abs are superior to general anti-mouse IgG 2 °Abs in every tested application in which mouse mAbs were used. This was due to a detection bias of general anti-mouse IgG-specific 2°Abs against mAbs of the most common mouse IgG subclass, IgG1, and to a lesser extent IgG2b mAbs. Thus, when using any of numerous mouse mAbs available through commercial and non-profit sources, for cleaner and more robust results each mAb should be detected with its respective IgG subclass-specific 2°Ab and not a general anti-mouse IgG-specific 2°Ab.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manning et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: