2 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. On 2014 Aug 18, Paul Brookes commented:

      I did not discover the following; these comments were sent to me by an anonymous correspondent, and I agree with their assessment of the data, so am posting here using my own name even though this is not a paper I have either read, or am familiar with the field of...

      In Figure 2C, the anti-Flag blot (bottom panel) contains several bands which bear a striking resemblance (more than would be expected by pure coincidence) to bands in the anti-Myc blot of Figure 2B (middle panel). In fact, it's almost as if the latter is a longer exposure of the former.

      Also in Figure 2C, the central panel (anti-GST blot), the bands in the top left appear strikingly similar to bands in the anti-tubulin blot (lower panel) in Figure 5A, with 180 degree rotation.

      FYI, another paper from the same group Schwamborn JC, 2007 has also been flagged by the same person, and I have/will left a comment there too. I am reliably informed that the DFG (German equivalent of the NIH) is aware of these data problems, as are the journals involved. However more than 6 months has now passed with no actions taken.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

  2. Feb 2018
    1. On 2014 Aug 18, Paul Brookes commented:

      I did not discover the following; these comments were sent to me by an anonymous correspondent, and I agree with their assessment of the data, so am posting here using my own name even though this is not a paper I have either read, or am familiar with the field of...

      In Figure 2C, the anti-Flag blot (bottom panel) contains several bands which bear a striking resemblance (more than would be expected by pure coincidence) to bands in the anti-Myc blot of Figure 2B (middle panel). In fact, it's almost as if the latter is a longer exposure of the former.

      Also in Figure 2C, the central panel (anti-GST blot), the bands in the top left appear strikingly similar to bands in the anti-tubulin blot (lower panel) in Figure 5A, with 180 degree rotation.

      FYI, another paper from the same group Schwamborn JC, 2007 has also been flagged by the same person, and I have/will left a comment there too. I am reliably informed that the DFG (German equivalent of the NIH) is aware of these data problems, as are the journals involved. However more than 6 months has now passed with no actions taken.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.