The unstructured N-terminal tails of histones protrude from the core nucleosome and harbor complex patterns of post-translational modifications (PTMs) (Kouzarides 2007; Margueron and Reinberg 2010; Bannister and Kouzarides 2011; Tan et al. 2011). These PTMs regulate a multitude of chromatin-templated transactions, play a central role in development, and are implicated in many diseases, such as cancer (Suva et al. 2013). Therefore, understanding the role of histone marks in chromatin-dependent processes is of paramount importance. So far, techniques based on the specific binding of antibodies to modified histone proteins have been the only method available for genome-wide analyses of histone modifications with locus-specific resolution. The central role of antibodies for the characterization of histone PTMs in chromatin research makes the quality and reliability of these reagents a very important scientific issue. In general, antibodies are very powerful and important reagents in biomolecular research, but the validation of commercial antibodies is not always sufficiently rigorous (Bordeaux et al. 2010). This is particularly important in the chromatin field, where specific recognition and discrimination of subtle epitopes defined only by the presence of distinct PTMs is required. Moreover, several important modifications occur in very similar amino acid sequence motifs, like the methylation of H3K9 and H3K27, which are both placed in the context of an ARKS sequence. In addition, histone tails are hypermodified, as exemplified by the H3 tail, where the adjacent R8, K9, and S10 amino acid side chains are known to be methylated, acetylated, or phosphorylated. This implies that secondary modifications often occur on the peptide segment contacted by the antibody in the immediate vicinity of the target PTM and sometimes prevent the binding of antibodies in spite of the presence of the target modification, yielding false negative results. When undocumented, the cross-reactivity with related or unrelated marks and the combinatorial effect of neighboring marks compromise the application of antibodies, as illustrated in Figure 1. Additionally, different antibodies show distinct profiles of false positive and false negative signals, and even antibodies with the same catalog numbers regularly show lot-to-lot fluctuations of properties (also illustrated in Fig. 1). This variability is not unexpected for polyclonal antibodies, where new batches are produced by immunization of a new animal, but changes of purification procedure may cause variance of properties of monoclonal antibodies as well. Occasionally some lots of commercial antibodies even prefer to bind to secondary targets (see Fig. 1 and H3K36me3 antibodies documented in Bock et al. 2011a). This necessitates a detailed quality control and documentation of each antibody and each lot in order to give the user all relevant information for correct data interpretation, which is often not sufficiently provided. The urgency for better quality assessment and documentation of antibodies used in chromatin research has been widely recognized in the field (Bock et al. 2011a; Egelhofer et al. 2011; Fuchs et al. 2011; Nishikori et al. 2012; Peach et al. 2012; Hattori et al. 2013; Heubach et al. 2013), and the ENCODE Project Consortium has set up quality criteria for histone PTM antibodies (Egelhofer et al. 2011; Landt et al. 2012). According to these guidelines, antibodies must specifically detect modified histones in Western blots and fulfill one or more of the following secondary criteria: (1) specific binding to modified peptides in dot blot assays; (2) mass spectrometric detection of the modification in precipitated chromatin; (3) loss of signal upon knockdown of the corresponding histone modifying enzyme; (4) reproducibility of ChIP-seq; (5) similarity of ChIP-seq results of two different antibodies directed against the same modification; or (6) overlap of ChIP-seq peaks with expected genomic annotations. Figure 1. Peptide array analyses showing lot-to-lot fluctuations, cross-reactivity, and effects of proximal marks on the binding of popular histone tail antibodies. Peptide spots are annotated on the left side of the glass slide. The color-coded boxes denote the ... To develop an alternative to antibodies for chromatin research, we assessed the applicative potential and utility of naturally occurring and engineered histone modification interacting domains (HMIDs). This approach has several distinct advantages over antibodies, such as the ease and cost-effectiveness of recombinant production of HMIDs in Escherichia coli, the amenability of HMIDs to protein engineering, and the possibility of producing them at constant quality, eliminating lot-to-lot variability. In support of this concept, affinity methods based on protein domains have been successfully employed for the enrichment of methylated or unmethylated CpG islands in the analysis of DNA methylation (Cross et al. 1994; Blackledge et al. 2012) or in proteome-wide analyses of non-histone lysine methylation (Liu et al. 2013; Moore et al. 2013). In this proof-of-principle study, we started by characterizing the specificity of several HMIDs and compared them with ENCODE-validated antibodies for the same PTM using peptide arrays. Specificities were further validated in Western blots by detecting histone tail PTMs using unmodified histones and histones specifically depleted with the target PTM as controls. Then, we investigated the applicative potential of HMIDs in ChIP-like experiments to enrich for chromatin with particular modifications, which represents one of the most important and commonly used applications of histone tail PTM antibodies.