Reagent specificity and scientific integrity: A necessary combination

Article Outline

• Copyright

Integrity underpins the pursuit of science. As researchers, we depend on the reliability of many resources, reagents and techniques included, to perform experiments and test hypotheses. Appropriate controls are a key requirement for the interpretation of the resultant data, enabling us to make valid conclusions. The process of scientific discovery is done in good faith, and with rare exceptions the conclusions deduced are reliable.

In this issue of Placenta, the eminent and reputable Dr. Joan Hunt reports a flaw in the specificity of one of two monoclonal antibodies, supplied by a commercial source, that was used to conduct important studies in the detection of two inhibitory HLA-G receptors in human term placentas. The paper was published in Placenta (29: 631–638, 2008) and showed that placental stromal cells and vascular smooth muscle cells appeared to express LILRB2. These data were used to conclude that both cell types express this HLA-G immunoregulatory protein.

Experiments not only generate results but also new hypotheses for testing. Often, reproduction of the findings from the initial study is included as a control for the new experiments. When we find that a previously reported result is not supported by the current experiments, we naturally ask, “Why?” Such a situation occurred for Dr. Hunt and her colleagues with the above-cited paper. They were able to confirm antigen expression in the stromal cells by a variety of techniques, but found that antibody detection of LILRB2 in vascular smooth muscle cells could not be validated using multiple cell lines for immunohistochemistry, RT-PCR, and western analysis.

So, what does an investigator do with such data? Scientists with high integrity report the discrepancy and identify what is, and is not, a valid conclusion from the previous publication. This is done with angst, yet also with the clear understanding that this is the right thing to do.

The principle illustrated by this Letter to the Editors is one by which we all can live. Testing reagents, and confirming findings by multiple methodologies is good practice. As Editors for Placenta, we applaud the communication Dr. Hunt has provided, and we use this as a further example of the scientific integrity of this renowned investigator and her laboratory colleagues. We thank them for being honest in their endeavors, despite the trouble this must have created.

We can all learn from this communication. Reagents and data interpretation require vigilance. We should all aspire in our studies for that which is true for placental function.