The antibody in your last three papers is discontinued

A seven-step play for a research reagent supplier. It starts from PubMed, stacks Firecrawl, NIH RePORTER and Europe PMC on top, and ends in a message to the principal investigator that is useful before anyone replies.

Deploy in Glider

Installs this workflow, five project tables and a draft campaign. Source access and any external outputs are checked before research.

Category: Health and life sciences
Sources: 4
Steps: 7

The workflow

TriggerPubMedCatalog and clone numbers in methods sections
Evidence
FirecrawlSupplier catalogs showing the discontinuation NIH RePORTERThe PI's active grants Europe PMCFull-text methods for more labs
Artifact
What you hand overA validated equivalent with side-by-side data on the same tissue, and the papers that already use it.
Contact
GliderFinds the principal investigator, with a verified work email and a phone
Message
Send itFrom your own mailboxes, evidence attached

Why it earns attention

A lab that built years of work on one antibody clone cannot just switch. When that product is retired, they need a validated replacement before their stock runs out, and few suppliers will tell them.

The play in seven steps

01
Find who uses the antibody
PubMed
What you pull
Methods sections that cite a specific catalog number or clone: the paper, the lab, and the application. Europe PMC adds full text for more labs.
Why it matters
A lab that used the same clone in three papers depends on it. That is the lab that has to act.
Example
Clone X · catalog 1234 · cited in 3 papers from one lab · immunohistochemistry on mouse liver
02
Confirm it was discontinued
Firecrawl
What you pull
The supplier's product page and notices: status, the date it was retired, and any suggested alternative.
Why it matters
This is the trigger. Labs often learn about it when an order bounces.
Example
Discontinued Sept 2026 · supplier suggests a different clone
03
Check they have years of work left
NIH RePORTER
What you pull
The PI's active grants: end dates and aims that use the same application.
Why it matters
Funding through 2028 means two more years of experiments on that clone. That is the size of the problem.
Example
R01 active through 2028 · aim 2 uses the same staining
04
Build the replacement pack
Your artifact
What you build
Your equivalent with validation data on the same tissue and application, side by side with the retired product, and papers that already use it.
Why it works
A PI won't swap a reagent on a promise. Comparison data on their own tissue type is the only thing that works.
Example
Same epitope · IHC on mouse liver · matching staining pattern · cited in 7 papers
05
Check before you send
Only claim equivalence you have data for. If you lack validation on their tissue or application, offer a free test vial instead.
06
Find the principal investigator in Glider
Glider
Search for
Principal investigatorLab managerPostdoctoral researcherResearch technician
Why them
The PI decides; the lab manager orders and will notice the empty shelf first.
What you get
A work email and a direct phone, with the email verified before it goes into a sequence.
07
Send the evidence, then run the first test
To: the principal investigatorEvery line comes from a step above
Your last three papers used clone X under catalog 1234,¹ which the supplier retired in September.² Your R01 runs through 2028 and aim 2 uses the same staining.³ Here's our equivalent with side-by-side IHC data on mouse liver, the tissue you work with.⁴ Can I send a test vial?
- Facts from the data (the number is the step)
- What you built for them
- One small ask
Why it works
It is about their reagent and their papers, it names a problem they will hit soon, and the ask is a free test, not a purchase.
First test
One discontinued reagent, twenty labs with recent citations and active funding.
Success looks like
Five test vials sent out of twenty labs, and two orders.