For Funders — Only Good Antibodies Community

Why this matters for funders

Antibody-related failures account for an estimated $1 billion annually in wasted US preclinical research spending alone. Every grant funding antibody-dependent work carries a risk that key findings rest on tools that do not perform as assumed — leading to misdirected follow-on research, unreliable preliminary data in future applications, and the consumption of irreplaceable animal and human tissue samples without valid scientific return. The four staged interventions on this page make antibody validation a visible, budgeted, and reportable part of the research you fund — without creating new review burden.

Watch: Why antibody choice matters (5 min) ▸

The Grant Lifecycle

Four Staged Interventions

A Delphi consensus study with 32 international experts identified six funder-facing recommendations as both effective and feasible. These map onto four stages of the grant lifecycle, starting with the lightest intervention (a paragraph in applicant guidance) and building towards comprehensive oversight. Each stage is a complete, free-standing action — funders can adopt Stage 1 alone and add the later stages over time.

Signal importance in applicant guidance

R13 Zero cost · no form changes

Add a short paragraph to applicant guidance telling applicants that antibody-dependent research should demonstrate awareness of validation — checking independent characterisation data, planning controls, and budgeting for validation materials. What changes: applicants prime themselves to think about validation before they write. This single action creates the demand signal that downstream interventions depend on.

At application — budget awareness and preliminary evidence

R11 · R13 Form changes · no new review burden

Two complementary expectations. First, a budget line for antibody validation materials (with indicative costs provided — see toolkit below). Second, for any antibody-derived preliminary data, a structured documentation of what validation was performed, using the OGA Validation Recorder. What changes: validation is costed realistically rather than unfunded; preliminary antibody data becomes reviewable; applicants are not asked to speculate about antibodies they haven't yet selected.

During funded projects — host institutional oversight

R10 Condition of funding · institution-delivered

Rather than demanding detailed prospective validation plans at application (which are guesswork), require the host institution to provide validation oversight infrastructure as a condition of funding — training, structured planning tools, and supervisory oversight. What changes: detailed validation planning happens at the right moment (after antibody selection) and by the right actor (the supervisor). The funder shifts from evaluating technical content to requiring that the infrastructure exists.

At publication — transparency reporting and endorsed standards

R14 · R15 Terms-and-conditions change · low effort

At the end of a funded project, require structured validation reporting with publications (the Validation Recorder produces supplementary-material-ready output), and formally endorse community reporting standards — the IWGAV five-pillar framework, the MDAR checklist, and the OGA Planning Framework that operationalises them. What changes: validation reporting becomes a consistent language from application to publication; community standards gain leverage when backed by funder endorsement; the same tool (the Recorder) documents preliminary evidence at Stage 2b and final outcomes here, closing the loop.

Your Toolkit

Resources to Operationalise Each Stage

Four resources that directly support the stages above. Each is free, open, and designed to slot into existing grant processes without new review machinery.

💷

Validation Budgeting Guide

Indicative UK costs for common validation controls, so applicants can budget realistically at Stage 2a. The table below is reproduced from the full Funder Adoption Guide, which also lists suppliers for each control type.

Control type	Cost range	Timeline
Knockout cell line (catalogue)	£1,500–£2,500	1–2 wk
Knockout cell line (custom)	£800–£3,000+	4–10 wk
siRNA reagents (per target)	£200–£400	1–2 wk
Overexpression lysate	£100–£400	~1 wk
Plasmid / transfection construct	£100–£500	1–2 wk
Additional comparison antibody	£150–£400	~1 wk
Researcher time (per target)	Variable	2–8 wk

Typical total per target: £500–£3,500. A project using 3–5 target-specific antibodies should budget £1,500–£10,000 for validation materials.

Full guide with supplier listings (PDF) ↓

🧰

OGA Tools for Applicants and Grantees

The tools that make each stage practical. Free, open, and designed to be referenced directly from applicant guidance or terms and conditions.

OGA Validation Planner For funded grantees to document a proportionate validation strategy once antibodies are selected (Stage 3). Output is a structured PDF. Open the Planner →

OGA Validation Recorder For documenting preliminary antibody data at application (Stage 2b) and final validation reporting at publication (Stage 4). Single tool, two uses. Open the Recorder →

OGA Academy Free self-paced e-learning covering antibody selection, validation frameworks, and data interpretation. Suitable for applicant and grantee training requirements. Go to the Academy ↗

OGA Antibody Database Curated independent characterisation data that applicants should check before proposing antibody-dependent experiments. Search the database →

📐

Standards to Endorse

Stage 4 asks funders to formally endorse community reporting standards. These three together form a coherent stack: the IWGAV framework sets the scientific vocabulary, MDAR sets the reporting minimum, and the OGA Planning Framework operationalises both into a workflow researchers can actually follow.

OGA Framework for Planning Antibody Validation The operationalisation layer. Sets out proportionate validation decisions by scientific question, control matching, and assay-specific testing. Available as a document, a downloadable PDF, and an interactive tool. Read the Framework → · PDF ↓

IWGAV five-pillar framework Community standard for describing validation approaches (genetic, orthogonal, independent antibody, tagged expression, IP-MS). Uhlén et al., Nat Methods 2016 ↗

MDAR reporting checklist Community standard for transparent reporting in the life sciences, including antibody metadata. Macleod et al., PNAS 2021 ↗

Paste-ready endorsement language is in Block 5 below.

📄

Full Funder Adoption Guide

A single document covering the four stages in detail, the full validation budgeting guide with suppliers, the quality-assurance-through-institutional-oversight model, and the relationship to institutional and publisher interventions.

Useful as a reference for funder policy teams, programme managers, and scientific advisory boards considering adoption of any of the four stages.

Download adoption guide (PDF) ↓

Ready-to-Adopt

Language Blocks

Expand the block relevant to the stage you are adopting. Each includes a placement note, the recommended text, and a copy-to-clipboard button. Adapt freely to house style — the substance is what matters.

Block 1: Applicant guidance paragraph (Stage 1, R13)▼

Placement: Applicant guidance notes, scheme webpage, or "before you apply" documentation. No form changes required.

Applicants proposing antibody-dependent experiments should demonstrate awareness of antibody validation requirements. This includes checking whether independent characterisation data exists for proposed antibodies (e.g. via the OGA Antibody Database or YCharOS reports), planning appropriate controls, and budgeting for validation materials. Free training is available through the OGA Academy (onlygoodantibodies.co.uk/academy).

Block 2: Budget line expectation (Stage 2a, R11)▼

Placement: Budget guidance or application form instructions for schemes funding antibody-dependent research.

If your project involves the use of antibodies, include a line in your budget for antibody validation materials. Typical costs include knockout or knockdown controls, positive control reagents, and researcher time. See the OGA Validation Budgeting Guide (onlygoodantibodies.co.uk/roadmap/funders) for indicative costs. For projects where key experimental conclusions will depend on antibody-derived data, we recommend using the OGA Validation Planner (onlygoodantibodies.co.uk/tools/validation-planner) to develop a detailed validation strategy.

Block 3: Preliminary data documentation (Stage 2b)▼

Placement: Application form instructions for preliminary-data or case-for-support sections where antibody-derived data is presented.

Where your application includes preliminary data generated using antibodies, provide a completed OGA Validation Record (onlygoodantibodies.co.uk/tools/validation-recorder) or equivalent structured summary for each antibody used. This should document: the antibody identity (including RRID where available), the controls performed, and the results of those controls.

Block 4: Host institutional oversight condition (Stage 3, R10)▼

Placement: Terms and conditions of award, or expectations of host institutions, for schemes funding antibody-dependent research.

The host institution is expected to provide antibody validation support for funded researchers, including access to training (e.g. OGA Academy), structured validation planning tools (e.g. OGA Validation Planner), and supervisory oversight of validation strategy for antibody-dependent experiments.

Block 5: Publication reporting and endorsement of community standards (Stage 4, R14 & R15)▼

Placement: Open access / data sharing policy, or reporting requirements in terms and conditions of award.

We expect grantees to include structured validation reporting in publications arising from funded research. For each antibody whose performance is critical to the interpretation of results, publications should include a completed OGA Validation Record (onlygoodantibodies.co.uk/tools/validation-recorder) or equivalent structured summary documenting the antibody identity, controls used, and outcomes. We endorse the International Working Group on Antibody Validation (IWGAV) five-pillar framework, the MDAR reporting checklist, and the OGA Framework for Planning Antibody Validation as community standards for antibody validation and reporting.

Good Antibody Practice Across the Grant Lifecycle