Knockout vs. Knockdown

In a survey conducted by Nature, 90% of respondents agreed that there was a reproducibility crisis in biological experiments and many blamed it on poor-quality antibodies. Irreproducible results not only frustrate researchers, but also waste precious time, samples, and funding.

To validate an antibody, it must be shown to be specific, selective, and reproducible in the context for which it is to be used. One tried and true validation method is using the proper controls to ensure the absence of non-specific binding. For example, negative controls are particular samples included in the experiment that is treated the same as all the other samples but are not expected to change in any way due to the experimental conditions. The best negative control is a cell line or tissue that is known not to express the protein of interest. Testing antibody performance against genetically modified samples is one way to verify that an antibody recognizes a specific target. This can be done through various methods, two of which are knockdown and knockout samples.

What are Knockout samples?

CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology enables complete removal or “knock out” of both alleles of the gene encoding the target protein. Antibody specificity is confirmed by demonstrating that a protein band is only present in the wildtype and not the KO cell lysate in WB analysis.

An example of HUABIO knockout validation, ET1608-64

What are Knockdown samples?

Knockdown is another method of gene silencing responsible for the temporary inactivation of a particular gene product. It is applicable in the RNA level and it targets the mRNA produced by the transcription of the target gene. Therefore, gene knockdown is a form of post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression.

What is the difference between KO/KD?

The main difference between gene knockout and knockdown is that gene knockout involves the complete erasing of target genes, or inactivating them through nonsense mutations whereas gene knockdown leads to abortive protein translation and degradation of that mRNA.


Bogdanove & Voytas (2011). TAL Effectors: Customizable proteins for DNA targeting. Science 333, 1843.

Jinek, et al. (2012). A programmable dual-RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816.

Ketting (2011). The many faces of RNAi. Dev. Cell 20, 148.

Mittal (2004). Improving the efficiency of RNA interference in mammals. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 355.

Shalem, et al. (2014). Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Science 343, 84.

Wang, et al. (2013). TALEN-mediated editing of the mouse Y chromosome. Nature Biotech. 31, 530.

Wang, et al. (2014). Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Science 343, 80.

O’Hurley, Gillian, et al. “Garbage in, garbage out: a critical evaluation of strategies used for validation of immunohistochemical biomarkers.” Molecular Oncology 8.4 (2014): 783-798.


outstanding technical support


we offer a full product guarantee


we offer free delivery to UK universities and non profit organisations