This is not such an old paper. The authors might post the full original blots.
It looks like a small mistake in image preparation which probably doesn't affect any conclusions of the paper. Such things seem to be pretty common.
Still, the authors need to correct it via a small erratum in the Journal and/or PubMed Commons.
The error is obvious so there is no need in original blots to try to disprove it. Though, if they are still available they can be added in the erratum.
Well, I beg to differ with Anolis. This is not a "small mistake". It is an alleged attempt at falsifying data. One does not cut and paste individual bands in the preparation of figures. But there may be an other explanation?
Scientists are usually smart, so when they want to falsify data and perform Photoshop science you won't notice. ;)
Such small things usually come from honest mistakes. Gel splicing was very common and acceptable way to prepare figures not so long ago. Though, here I don't see a clear reason to rearrange these gel lines.
Probably, splicing gels is even popular now with a recommendation to make splice lines clearly visible and to not do it with individual lines. You can't just change the mind and standards of so many people.
As a related note, there are maybe thousands of papers where people don't state sequences of qPCR primers and siRNA but so far no one was able to change even that (though it seems a really simple thing).
How to explain the duplications, and bands being shunted into another lane?
Values represent the mean±s.e.m. values of three experiments
As a general advice (not specific to this paper/authors): it's better to use SD over SEM. In case of n=3 a scatter would be even better.
A Nature paper was recently retracted based on band duplications like in this case and lack of raw data to verify the data.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v547/n7662/full/nature23287.html?foxtrotcallback=true
There is strong evidence of band duplication here. This is manipulation of data.
The authors should correct with the original data or retract the paper.
Do authors have anything to say about this image duplication?
This is not a very old paper. Authors could still have the original data. Please post them.
The silence of the authors is not easy to understand. Perhaps, if they show the raw data, the image duplication could be still explained. However, author #1 has been already involved in several other problematic papers:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/AA08ECA542FAA50BB5B146B2AD0E4A https://pubpeer.com/publications/C330264E334F7D358BCA255F6E2DB1 https://pubpeer.com/publications/F9A8EDECC3725C150BCB3661991FB9 https://pubpeer.com/publications/91BD32543477F99BE18E0628EC1558
It is a pity that authors failed to addres the issie of image duplication in this paper.
Does anybody know if the EMBO J editors have reviewed figure 4E?
2 November 2022 https://www.embopress.org/doi/abs/10.15252/embj.2022112402
Partial Retraction of: The EMBO Journal (2010) 29: 3607–3620. DOI: 10.1038/emboj.2010.237 | Published online 24 September 2010
Journal statement
The journal contacted the authors in February 2022 about potential image insertions and duplications in Fig 4A and 4E. In the absence of source data, the authors are retracting Fig 4A, the lower panel of Fig 4E (LAMP1 immunoblot), and the following statements in the text that rely on these data:
“Quantitative analysis showed that the percentage of Flotillin-1 associated with DRMs was increased in LSD endolysosomal membranes (Figure 4A), indicating an increased amount of cholesterol-enriched regions in these membrane samples.”
“LAMP1 also displayed a similar distribution profile in WT and LSD cells (Figure 4E)”.
Author statement
The authors could not verify the aberrations in panel A of Fig 4 and the lower immunoblot (LAMP1) of 4E because the original source data are no longer available (12 years after publication, which is beyond the institute's 10-year data retention policy).
The authors wish to clarify that the main conclusions of the paper are not affected by the retraction of Figure panels 4A and 4E for the following reasons:
Figure panel 4A supports the observation that there are increased cholesterol-enhanced regions in LSD samples. This finding is also supported by data provided in figs 4B, 4C and 4D.
Figure panel 4E: The LAMP1 blot in Fig 4E shows that the distribution of protein normally excluded from DRMs is not altered between Wt and LSD samples. This result is also supported by the upper blot in this panel (Transferrin receptor).
The authors apologize for these errors and agree with this corrigendum; no response could be obtained from AL.
Attach files by dragging & dropping, selecting them, or pasting from the clipboard. Uploading your files… We don’t support that file type. with a PNG, GIF, or JPG. Yowza, that’s a big file. with a file smaller than 1MB. This file is empty. with a file that’s not empty. Something went really wrong, and we can’t process that file.
Comment must be at least 15 characters.