Resolving the current controversy of use and reuse of housekeeping proteins in ageing research: Focus on saving people’s tax dollars

The use of housekeeping genes and proteins to normalize mRNA and protein levels in biomedical research has faced growing scrutiny. Researchers encounter challenges in determining the optimal frequency for running housekeeping proteins such as β-actin, Tubulin, and GAPDH for nuclear-encoded proteins, and Porin, HSP60, and TOM20 for mitochondrial proteins alongside experimental proteins. The regulation of these proteins varies with age, gender, disease progression, epitope nature, gel running conditions, and their reported sizes can differ among antibody suppliers. Additionally, anonymous readers have raised concerns about peer-reviewed and published articles, creating confusion and concern within the research and academic institutions. To clarify these matters, this minireview discusses the role of reference housekeeping proteins in Western blot analysis and outlines key considerations for their use as normalization controls. Instead of Western blotting of housekeeping proteins, staining of total proteins, using Amido Black and Coomassie Blue can be visualized the total protein content on a membrane. The reducing repeated Western blotting analysis of housekeeping proteins, will save resources, time and efforts and in turn increase the number of competitive grants from NIH and funding agencies. We also discussed the use of dot blots over traditional Western blots, when protein levels are low in rare tissues/specimens and cell lines. We sincerely hope that the facts, figures, and discussions presented in this article will clarify the current controversy regarding housekeeping protein(s) use, reuse, and functional aspects of housekeeping proteins. The contents presented in our article will be useful to students, scholars and researchers of all levels in cell biology, protein chemistry and mitochondrial research.