PMID 36612268 · 2022Cancers
We also tried to validate cathepsin D expression in vivo, but we were not able to optimize the immunohistochemistry protocol due to a persistent lack of specific antibody signal.
Use cases · Reagents & antibodies
The lab that just wrote “non-specific binding” is your warmest lead.
A reagent is not evaluated once. It is evaluated every time it fails, and the failure is written down in the methods and discussion sections of the next paper: a band that should not be there, a signal that drifted between lots, a blocking step added to rescue a stain. Nobody sends you that note. They publish it.
Opportunity · evidence-based
- Who?
- Ana Teresa Pinto, Maria José Oliveira and colleagues, Cancers, 2022
- What problem?
- Specificity, in their own words (highlighted).
- Why your solution?
- If your anti-cathepsin D antibody is validated for immunohistochemistry, it addresses the exact step they could not complete. Potential fit.
- Why reach out?
- They wanted the in vivo validation and said why they could not get it. Offer the validated clone and its IHC data, nothing else.
Open the paper ↗
The opening
They have already written it down.
That is the whole opening. You are not asking a stranger whether they use antibodies. You are writing to a named group that has already described, in print, the exact problem your clone or your kit was validated against, and you can say which product they are using now because they cited it themselves.
The language to search
The vocabulary a reagent complaint actually uses, extracted from discussion sections rather than guessed at:
specificitycross-reactivitylot-to-lot variabilitybackgroundstandardizationsensitivity
Categories we extract and verify, not keywords we grep for. A sentence saying a feared problem did not occur is not a problem, and the verification pass is there to drop it.
Across all segments today: 14,860 researchers with a limitation in print, 30,404 verified quotes, and 18,843 researchers whose instruments and reagents we can name.
How the work goes
Three moves, in order.
01
Search by the competitor's catalogue number
Methods sections usually name the supplier and often the catalogue number. We pull both, so you can list the labs currently running a rival clone in your application and in your region, rather than guessing which of them might.
02
Filter that list down to the unhappy ones
Citing a product is a lead. Citing it and then writing that the staining needed extra blocking is a switching opportunity with a date on it. The pain signal and the product mention come from the same paper, so the two filters compose.
03
Open with their result, not your datasheet
Every signal arrives as a verbatim quote with the paper behind it. The first line of the email is their sentence, which is the one email in their inbox that was not written to a segment.
See it on your own catalogue.
We run the search live against the researchers you sell to, and you decide from what is there.
Other segments: Instruments · CRO & CDMO services · IVD & med-tech