| ▲ | raverbashing 5 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | flobosg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | bonsai_spool 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | codedokode 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is obvious that they edited the images to make blobs look shorter vertically. And in some cases, simply copy-pasted non-existing blobs. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||