Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

reeserichardson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 97 posts

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#11

Post by raverbashing »

flobosg wrote: post #8
noodlesUK wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely isn't a good look but I'm not entirely sure where this lands on "the line drawing on my IKEA instruction manual doesn't look like the furniture" to "VW diesel emissions report" spectrum. I'd appreciate if any bioscientists in the audience could clear that up a bit.

From the article: > This image is supposed to demonstrate that the antibody being sold works as intended. (…) Antibodies are near-ubiquitous but notoriously fickle laboratory reagents in biomedical research. For many applications, it is absolutely crucial that the antibodies that you use are selective (i.e., the antibody binds strongly to the target protein) and specific (i.e., the antibody binds to the protein of in…

I would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob) - or if data in a datasheet (something like test specificity, level of detection, etc) was wrong

Now, if while preparing the images they needed to do some editorial choices (or it is well possible a person in the editorial group was told to 'enhance the images' but wasn't aware of the details) because of limitations in doing the experiment then this is probably not a big deal

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#12

Post by boxed »

DonsDiscountGas wrote: post #2

Concerning but not really surprising. They offer about hundred thousand antibodies, a few hundred frauds is likely the tip of the iceberg. > “Similar image” searches using Google Lens, Bing Images or DuckDuckGo betray hundreds more that we have yet to document In my experience these would return any image of an antibody (edit) Western blot, not just the exactly matching background. Would be curious to hear others tho…

From the comments on the article by the author it looks more like 10% so far and they haven't systematically looked. That means ~10% if a probable floor of how much fraud there is.

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#13

Post by pu_pe »

arcade79 wrote: post #10

I have no idea about this catalogue, however, looking at the article and how the image manipulation has happened - it looks very much like "repro" work back in the day. Anything that large companies published in/as magazines, etc, back in the 80/90s first went to a design company. Then to a repro company for the "finishing touches" to make it look nice. Faces were touched up, photo artifacts was removed, everything w…

No marketing or design company would duplicate a band from another experiment (taking care to rotate it to make it look different nonetheless). Even in that unlikely scenario, Thermo Fisher is still responsible for the scientific data they publish.

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#14

Post by bonsai_spool »

raverbashing wrote: post #11
flobosg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > This image is supposed to demonstrate that the antibody being sold works as intended. (…) Antibodies are near-ubiquitous but notoriously fickle laboratory reagents in biomedical research. For many applications, it is absolutely crucial that the antibodies that you use are selective (i.e., the antibody binds strongly to the target protein) and specific (i.e., the antibody binds to the protein of in…

I would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob) - or if data in a datasheet (something like test specificity, level of detection, etc) was wrong Now, if while preparing the images they needed to do some editorial choices (or it is well possible a person in the editorial group was told to 'enhance the images' but wasn't aware of the details) because of limitations in doing the experiment then…

Do you work in biology?

> would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob) - or if data in a datasheet (something like test specificity, level of detection, etc) was wrong

These images are provided on the datasheet and form the basis for the level of detection / specificity claims

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#15

Post by flobosg »

raverbashing wrote: post #11
flobosg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > This image is supposed to demonstrate that the antibody being sold works as intended. (…) Antibodies are near-ubiquitous but notoriously fickle laboratory reagents in biomedical research. For many applications, it is absolutely crucial that the antibodies that you use are selective (i.e., the antibody binds strongly to the target protein) and specific (i.e., the antibody binds to the protein of in…

I would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob) - or if data in a datasheet (something like test specificity, level of detection, etc) was wrong Now, if while preparing the images they needed to do some editorial choices (or it is well possible a person in the editorial group was told to 'enhance the images' but wasn't aware of the details) because of limitations in doing the experiment then…

> I would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob)

Or if more than one blob is present (i.e. blobs at different molecular weights) for a supposedly selective and specific antibody that should show exactly one blob on the blot.

> Now, if while preparing the images they needed to do some editorial choices

Editorial choices on raw scientific data are a big no-no.

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#16

Post by pu_pe »

This is systematic fraud, and anyone trying those antibodies with falsified data will waste money and time. A lot of papers have been retracted for similar issues. Thermo Fisher is a major worldwide supplier of antibodies, so this has quite a big practical impact.

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#17

Post by rcxdude »

arcade79 wrote: post #10

I have no idea about this catalogue, however, looking at the article and how the image manipulation has happened - it looks very much like "repro" work back in the day. Anything that large companies published in/as magazines, etc, back in the 80/90s first went to a design company. Then to a repro company for the "finishing touches" to make it look nice. Faces were touched up, photo artifacts was removed, everything w…

The background painting could maybe be explained like this (depending on what was hidden), but I don't think the duplicated blobs have a good explanation, especially because some were rotated to try to hide the manipulation.

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#18

Post by raverbashing »

flobosg wrote: post #15
raverbashing wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob) - or if data in a datasheet (something like test specificity, level of detection, etc) was wrong Now, if while preparing the images they needed to do some editorial choices (or it is well possible a person in the editorial group was told to 'enhance the images' but wasn't aware of the details) because of limitations in doing the experiment then…

> I would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob) Or if more than one blob is present (i.e. blobs at different molecular weights) for a supposedly selective and specific antibody that should show exactly one blob on the blot. > Now, if while preparing the images they needed to do some editorial choices Editorial choices on raw scientific data are a big no-no.

> Editorial choices on raw scientific data are a big no-no.

I don't think you can find a picture in an article that hasn't been photoshopped in one way or another (which is mostly ok as long as it is not misleading)

Edit: TF's reply is interesting https://www.thermofisher.com/es/es/home/life-science/antibod...

Basically they say they are reviewing the images

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#19

Post by eig »

noodlesUK wrote: post #4

Exactly what is the "data" that's being shown here? Is it essentially some kind of marketing material showing "this sort of thing is what you should expect to see" or is it actually data or for compliance? If it's essentially marketing material or an instructional example that isn't meant to be representative it being magically clearer than real life doesn't seem like a great sin (unless it's being claimed it is repr…

I'd treat this about the same as datasheets for mechanical or electrical parts.

When I buy an electronic component as a regular consumer I expect the datasheet "typical" values to be accurate 90% of the time. I can imagine larger industrial customers would really raise a stink if it's worse than that. However, any critical components in my circuit must be verified and "binned", and that's on me.

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#20

Post by flobosg »

raverbashing wrote: post #18
flobosg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob) Or if more than one blob is present (i.e. blobs at different molecular weights) for a supposedly selective and specific antibody that should show exactly one blob on the blot. > Now, if while preparing the images they needed to do some editorial choices Editorial choices on raw scientific data are a big no-no.

> Editorial choices on raw scientific data are a big no-no. I don't think you can find a picture in an article that hasn't been photoshopped in one way or another (which is mostly ok as long as it is not misleading) Edit: TF's reply is interesting https://www.thermofisher.com/es/es/home/life-science/antibod... Basically they say they are reviewing the images

Usually, journals require raw, unmodified data to be deposited as supplementary information.
Post reply on HN