Correction Analysis Report: PTENP1/miR-20a/PTEN axis in breast cancer (DOI: 10.1186/s13046-023-02783-1)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report evaluates the 2023 Correction (DOI: 10.1186/s13046-023-02783-1) issued for the 2019 paper 'PTENP1/miR-20a/PTEN axis contributes to breast cancer progression by regulating PTEN via PI3K/AKT pathway' (original DOI: 10.1186/s13046-019-1260-6) published in Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research (42:202). Verdict: highly suspicious. The correction replaces three panels—Fig. 3E, Fig. 6D, and Fig. 6E—spanning migration and colony-formation assays. A 4-year gap between original publication (2019) and the correction (2023), combined with the simultaneous replacement of multiple panels across different experimental conditions, is characteristic of a reactive post-hoc correction triggered by external scrutiny. No pixel-level duplication can be confirmed from the correction text alone. Confidence is moderate: the available evidence supports a strong suspicion of image reuse in the original figures, but forensic verification requires the 2019 version.

Verdict

🟠 Highly suspicious. The 2023 correction (DOI: 10.1186/s13046-023-02783-1) replaces three figure panels from the 2019 original paper (DOI: 10.1186/s13046-019-1260-6). The pattern—a multi-panel image correction issued four years after publication—is a strong indicator of externally prompted remediation rather than spontaneous author discovery. Pixel-level evidence cannot be obtained from the correction document alone; verification requires the original 2019 figures.

Key findings

Delayed reactive correction: 4-year gap between original publication (2019) and correction (2023) is unusual for self-detected image errors; corrections typically follow PubPeer or journal-driven scrutiny.
Multi-panel image replacement: Three panels corrected simultaneously—Fig. 3E (siSCR migration), Fig. 6D (anti-miR-NC + siPTENP1), Fig. 6E (anti-miR-20a + siSCR)—covering distinct experimental conditions, which is difficult to attribute to inadvertent error.
Experiments implicated: Migration assay and colony-formation assay are both corrected; these are common targets for image reuse/misuse.
Language irregularity: The correction contains grammatical issues (e.g., 'identified an errors'), suggesting a hastily prepared document.
Standardized statistical claims: Figure legends repeatedly use formulaic 'means ± SD of triplicate determinants' / 'three independent assays' framing, which cannot be independently verified from the correction.

Evidence highlights

DOI 10.1186/s13046-023-02783-1: Correction notice (J Exp Clin Cancer Res, 2023, 42:202) referencing replacement of Fig. 3E, Fig. 6D, Fig. 6E.
DOI 10.1186/s13046-019-1260-6: Original 2019 publication that the correction amends.
Authors named: Xue Gao, Tao Qin, Jun Mao, Jun Zhang, Shujun Fan, Ying Lu, Zhigang Sun, Qingqing Zhang, Bo Song, Lianhong Li.
Timeline: Original publication 2019 → Correction 2023 (≈4 years).
Affected panels: Fig. 3E (siSCR control group); Fig. 6D (anti-miR-NC + siPTENP1 group); Fig. 6E (anti-miR-20a + siSCR group).
Statistical framing in legends: 'Data are the means ± SD of triplicate determinants'; 'Data are means ± SD of three independent assays'; significance noted as '*P < 0.05'.

Notes

This analysis is constrained: only the correction text and figure legends were provided, not the original 2019 figures, full Methods, statistical tables, or raw data.
Pixel-level duplication analysis (e.g., via ImageJ/ImageTwin) of Fig. 3E, 6D, 6E in the 2019 vs. 2023 versions is required to convert suspicion into confirmed evidence.
No assessment of digit-preference, p-value distribution, or Western blot duplication was possible from the supplied material.
Recommend cross-checking PubPeer entries on DOI 10.1186/s13046-019-1260-6 to identify whether the correction was prompted by specific public comments.
Requesting original uncropped blot/microscopy files from the corresponding author is advisable.
Marked uncertainty: the highly suspicious classification rests on circumstantial factors (timing, multi-panel scope, panel types); definitive attribution of misconduct requires institutional investigation.