For Funders — Only Good Antibodies Community

The Grant Lifecycle

Four Staged Interventions

Our Delphi study of 32 international experts rated six funder actions as both effective and feasible. They map onto four stages of the grant lifecycle. Stage 1 is a paragraph in your applicant guidance. Each stage works on its own, so you can adopt Stage 1 now and add the others later.

Signal importance in applicant guidance

R13 Zero cost · no form changes

Add a paragraph to your applicant guidance. It should ask applicants using antibodies to check independent characterisation data, plan their controls, and budget for validation materials. What changes: applicants think about validation before they write. This is the signal the later stages depend on.

At application — budget awareness and preliminary evidence

R11 · R13 Form changes · no new review burden

Ask for two things. 2a. A budget line for antibody validation materials, using the indicative costs in the toolkit below. 2b. A record of what validation was done for any antibody-derived preliminary data, using the OGA Validation Record. What changes: validation gets costed and budgeted for, and preliminary antibody data becomes reviewable. Applicants who have already chosen their antibodies can go further and submit a plan from the Selection Tool.

Validation planning — at application or under host oversight

R10 Same tool either way · institution-delivered after award

Where an applicant has already chosen their antibodies, ask for a validation plan at application. The Selection Tool produces one. Where they have not, make it a condition of funding that the host institution supports validation after the award: training, the same planning tool, and supervisory oversight. What changes: validation is planned once the antibody is known, whether that is before the award or after it. Either way you get a plan you can hold the grantee to, without judging the science of each one yourself.

At publication — transparency reporting and endorsed standards

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

Require structured validation reporting in publications from funded work. The Validation Record produces output ready for supplementary material. Then endorse the community standards: the IWGAV five-pillar framework, the MDAR checklist, and the OGA Planning Framework. What changes: validation is reported the same way from application to publication. Community standards carry more weight when a funder endorses them. One tool covers Stage 2b and this stage.

Your Toolkit

Resources for Each Stage

Five free resources for the stages above. Each fits into the grant processes you already run.

💷

Validation Budgeting Guide

Indicative UK costs for common validation controls, so applicants can budget at Stage 2a. The full Funder Adoption Guide has the same table with 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. All free, and all can be named directly in applicant guidance or terms and conditions.

OGA Antibody Selection Tool Answer a few questions about the target and the application to get a plan: which antibody to choose, the knockout-controlled evidence behind that choice, and the controls to run. The output is a PDF. An applicant who has chosen their antibodies can submit it with the application. A grantee can send it later as evidence for a validation condition of award. Same tool, either moment (Stage 3). Open the Selection Tool →

OGA Validation Record Records preliminary antibody data at application (Stage 2b) and final validation reporting at publication (Stage 4). One tool, two uses. Open the Validation Record →

OGA Academy Free self-paced e-learning on antibody selection, validation frameworks, and reading the data. Certificates carry a QR code, so you can verify one. Suitable for applicant and grantee training requirements. Go to the Academy ↗

OGA Antibody Database Independent characterisation data. Applicants should check it before proposing antibody-dependent experiments. Search the database →

🔍

Screening Support for Review Panels

Two free tools for the people reading the science rather than writing it: a panel member assessing preliminary data or a supporting preprint at Stage 2b, and anyone checking the papers from an award at Stage 4.

Browser extension Marks the antibodies named on a publisher's page with OGA's knockout-controlled result for each application, as you read. It runs in your own browser, so OGA never sees what you are reading.

AI connector Connects the OGA database to Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant. It reads a whole application, preprint or manuscript and reports which antibodies have been independently knockout-tested, and which specificity controls are shown.

Both report what independent testing exists. Neither scores an application. An antibody that is not in the database has not been tested by us.

Get the browser extension → Connect an AI →

📐

Standards to Endorse

Stage 4 asks funders to endorse community reporting standards. These three work together. IWGAV sets the vocabulary, MDAR sets the reporting minimum, and the OGA Planning Framework turns both into a workflow researchers can follow.

OGA Framework for Planning Antibody Validation Sets out how much validation a scientific question needs, which controls to match to it, and what to test in each assay. Available as a page, a 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

One document covering the four stages, the budgeting guide with suppliers, the institutional oversight model, and how this fits with what institutions and publishers are doing.

Written for funder policy teams, programme managers, and scientific advisory boards.

Download adoption guide (PDF) ↓

Ready-to-Adopt

Language Blocks

Open the block for the stage you are adopting. Each one has a placement note, the text, and a copy button. Adapt it to your house style.

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 Antibody Selection Tool (onlygoodantibodies.co.uk/selection-tool) 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-record) 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. the OGA Antibody Selection Tool), 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-record) 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