Specificity of Anti-Tau Antibodies when Analyzing Mice Models of Alzheimer's Disease: Problems and Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aggregates of hyperphosphorylated tau protein are found in a group of diseases called tauopathies, which includes Alzheimer's disease. The causes and consequences of tau hyperphosphorylation are routinely investigated in laboratory animals. Mice are the models of choice as they are easily amenable to transgenic technology; consequently, their tau phosphorylation levels are frequently monitored by Western blotting using a panel of monoclonal/polyclonal anti-tau antibodies. Given that mouse secondary antibodies can recognize endogenous mouse immunoglobulins (Igs) and the possible lack of specificity with some polyclonal antibodies, non-specific signals are commonly observed. Here, we characterized the profiles of commonly used anti-tau antibodies in four different mouse models: non-transgenic mice, tau knock-out (TKO) mice, 3xTg-AD mice, and hypothermic mice, the latter a positive control for tau hyperphosphorylation. We identified 3 tau monoclonal antibody categories: type 1, characterized by high non-specificity (AT8, AT180, MC1, MC6, TG-3), type 2, demonstrating low non-specificity (AT270, CP13, CP27, Tau12, TG5), and type 3, with no non-specific signal (DA9, PHF-1, Tau1, Tau46). For polyclonal anti-tau antibodies, some displayed non-specificity (pS262, pS409) while others did not (pS199, pT205, pS396, pS404, pS422, A0024). With monoclonal antibodies, most of the interfering signal was due to endogenous Igs and could be eliminated by different techniques: i) using secondary antibodies designed to bind only non-denatured Igs, ii) preparation of a heat-stable fraction, iii) clearing Igs from the homogenates, and iv) using secondary antibodies that only bind the light chain of Igs. All of these techniques removed the non-specific signal; however, the first and the last methods were easier and more reliable. Overall, our study demonstrates a high risk of artefactual signal when performing Western blotting with routinely used anti-tau antibodies, and proposes several solutions to avoid non-specific results. We strongly recommend the use of negative (i.e., TKO) and positive (i.e., hypothermic) controls in all experiments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".