[dabigv13]

Goose, what is your experience in a research science lab?

I've never "edge sharpened" any blots I ran before presenting them in a meeting, poster, or paper. I don't think I'm an outlier but I've only spent a few years in labs. I would welcome comment from people with more lab experience such as BC or chimera on this.

To cogently discuss your claim, I still need to pin down paper you are talking about.  At PubPeer, there are comments on 17 papers associated with MTL.
Two of those were published in Cell, but neither was published with just two authors.  Ly, et al, were the authors on a 2008 Cell paper. Hong, et al, were the authors on a 1999 Cell paper.    The only paper listed with two authors is a 2001 paper in Science.

MT, sorry I was incorrect in stating the Cell paper with the most egregious problem was only two authors. It was the 1999 Cell paper on which he was a senior author.

Here is the figure-

The level of detail in the alteration also appeared to be intentional, she added. Some image manipulations in other Tessier-Lavigne papers are duplications, meaning the same western blot is used to represent different results, and researchers could conceivably use the same image twice by mistake. “If they had reused the same blot, you could argue negative blots all look the same, we just grabbed the wrong blot,” said Bik. In this figure, though, parts of a single western blot have been copied and appear multiple times.

https://www.statnews.com/2022/11/30/stan...ed-images/

As I mentioned earlier Bik did work at Stanford previously. There is no public knowledge I'm aware of that points to any axe to grind, and it seems strange to make that the thrust of a defense for MTL. It's not like MTL is the only or first person Bik has identified as authoring an article with manipulated figures.

[dabigv13]

Goose, what is your experience in a research science lab?

I've never "edge sharpened" any blots I ran before presenting them in a meeting, poster, or paper. I don't think I'm an outlier but I've only spent a few years in labs. I would welcome comment from people with more lab experience such as BC or chimera on this.

To cogently discuss your claim, I still need to pin down paper you are talking about.  At PubPeer, there are comments on 17 papers associated with MTL.
Two of those were published in Cell, but neither was published with just two authors.  Ly, et al, were the authors on a 2008 Cell paper. Hong, et al, were the authors on a 1999 Cell paper.    The only paper listed with two authors is a 2001 paper in Science.

MT, sorry I was incorrect in stating the Cell paper with the most egregious problem was only two authors. It was the 1999 Cell paper on which he was a senior author.

Here is the figure-

The level of detail in the alteration also appeared to be intentional, she added. Some image manipulations in other Tessier-Lavigne papers are duplications, meaning the same western blot is used to represent different results, and researchers could conceivably use the same image twice by mistake. “If they had reused the same blot, you could argue negative blots all look the same, we just grabbed the wrong blot,” said Bik. In this figure, though, parts of a single western blot have been copied and appear multiple times.

https://www.statnews.com/2022/11/30/stan...ed-images/

As I mentioned earlier Bik did work at Stanford previously. There is no public knowledge I'm aware of that points to any axe to grind, and it seems strange to make that the thrust of a defense for MTL. It's not like MTL is the only or first person Bik has identified as authoring an article with manipulated figures.