On 2014 Feb 19, Paul Brookes commented:

This paper was the subject of a comment on the PLoS Biology website on July 23rd 2013, with concerns raised about the reliability of the western blot loading controls in Figures 6 and 8. In short, the control blots contained a different number of lanes than the protein-of-interest blots... something that should have been caught during peer review. In addition one of the control blots appeared to have been duplicated between two figures representing different experimental conditions and samples.

Recently I examined this paper (having been contacted by the person who posted the original comment). I prepared a series of images to illustrate the points raised, and posted them as follows: http://i.imgur.com/JvSuSn9.jpg http://i.imgur.com/bgOmUak.jpg http://i.imgur.com/nf60fQi.jpg http://i.imgur.com/F7PfovR.jpg

In addition, while examining the paper I came across three additional problems, in which western blot images appear to have been duplicated between pairs of figures representing different experimental conditions and samples: http://i.imgur.com/4DmR4it.jpg http://i.imgur.com/1Z42k5g.jpg http://i.imgur.com/wjEmuW0.jpg

It is rather troubling that the original concerns about this paper were raised over 7 months ago, but nothing appears to have been done about it. Perhaps the high level of publicity afforded the paper (it was picked up widely as a news story suggesting that obesity may be a contagious disease) has reduced the enthusiasm of the journal editors to act appropriately? In addition despite being asked for feedback in the original PLoS website comment, the authors have not yet offered any response.

On 2014 Feb 19, Paul Brookes commented:

This paper was the subject of a comment on the PLoS Biology website on July 23rd 2013, with concerns raised about the reliability of the western blot loading controls in Figures 6 and 8. In short, the control blots contained a different number of lanes than the protein-of-interest blots... something that should have been caught during peer review. In addition one of the control blots appeared to have been duplicated between two figures representing different experimental conditions and samples.

Recently I examined this paper (having been contacted by the person who posted the original comment). I prepared a series of images to illustrate the points raised, and posted them as follows: http://i.imgur.com/JvSuSn9.jpg http://i.imgur.com/bgOmUak.jpg http://i.imgur.com/nf60fQi.jpg http://i.imgur.com/F7PfovR.jpg

In addition, while examining the paper I came across three additional problems, in which western blot images appear to have been duplicated between pairs of figures representing different experimental conditions and samples: http://i.imgur.com/4DmR4it.jpg http://i.imgur.com/1Z42k5g.jpg http://i.imgur.com/wjEmuW0.jpg

It is rather troubling that the original concerns about this paper were raised over 7 months ago, but nothing appears to have been done about it. Perhaps the high level of publicity afforded the paper (it was picked up widely as a news story suggesting that obesity may be a contagious disease) has reduced the enthusiasm of the journal editors to act appropriately? In addition despite being asked for feedback in the original PLoS website comment, the authors have not yet offered any response.