Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 27, 2026

Rapid Antibody Glycoengineering in Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells
Published on: June 2, 2022
Head-to-Head Comparison of FAP Antibody Clones for Tissue Expression Analysis
Elena Shmakova1, Anna Kalinchuk1, Elisaveta Tsarenkova1
1Laboratory of Molecular Therapy of Cancer, Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk 634050, Russia.
Abstract:
Background: Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is a promising target for cancer diagnosis and therapy, but the specificity and sensitivity of anti-FAP antibodies used for immunohistochemistry (IHC) vary considerably. A head-to-head comparison of commercially available clones is needed to guide antibody selection, thereby standardizing FAP IHC protocols and ensuring reliable patient stratification for FAP-directed therapies. Methods: We evaluated three anti-FAP clones-FAP/4851 (mouse monoclonal), JA56-11 (recombinant rabbit), and EPR20021 (rabbit monoclonal)-in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues from 137 patients with breast (n = 29), colorectal (n = 27), lung (n = 42), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (n = 39). FAP expression was assessed by manual semiquantitative scoring (H-score and percentage of positive cells) and, for a validation subset, by QuPath-based digital image analysis. The study included negative (normal liver/skeletal muscle) and positive (WI-38 cell block) controls. Results: Clones JA56-11 and EPR20021 showed specific stromal staining, whereas FAP/4851 exhibited intense non-specific reactivity and was excluded from quantitative analysis. EPR20021 demonstrated significantly higher H-scores than JA56-11 in all four cancer types (Wilcoxon test, p ≤ 0.0179), resulting in a higher overall detection rate under the tested conditions. Aberrant tumor cell expression was detected almost exclusively by EPR20021 in head and neck (59% of cases) and colorectal (59%) cancers. QuPath validation showed good correlation with manual scoring for EPR20021 in the tumor compartment of lung cancer (Spearman's ρ = 0.701, p = 0.024) with small bias (Bland-Altman). Conclusions: Under the conditions tested, EPR20021 (Abcam) demonstrated higher staining intensity and detection rates than JA56-11 across several tumor types. Clone FAP/4851 showed nonspecific staining under the conditions used in this study and was therefore not suitable for quantitative analysis in the present experimental setting. Consequently, careful selection of well-validated antibody clones is essential for ensuring reproducible and reliable FAP immunohistochemical analysis.
