Geng Academic Fraud Detection Report: 'Long Noncoding RNAs Coregulated by Annexin A7 and JNK in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells Identified by Whole-Genome Expression Profiling' (DOI: 10.1155/2020/5747923)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report assesses Deng, Li, and Jin (2020) in BioMed Research International (Hindawi) for potential academic integrity issues. The overall verdict is highly suspicious. Six issues were identified: a methodology section describing lncRNA sequencing but containing mRNA-specific terminology suggesting copy-paste from a poly-A mRNA-seq protocol; a cell culture formulation summing to 101% (90% medium + 1% antibiotics + 10% FBS); a statistical paradox in Table 3 where Rdm1 shows a 4.157-fold change yet is labeled P > 0.05, while CD55 shows 0.544-fold change also labeled P > 0.05; implausibly low SD (59.4% ± 1.3%) alongside extremely high SD (1175.4% ± 547.6%) in qPCR data; a cis-regulatory logic contradiction where lncRNA NONMMUT012084.2 decreases while its putative target Rdm1 supposedly increases 4-fold; and figure legend errors including duplicated group labels and misspelling 'shRNA' as 'snRNA'. Image-level analysis was not performed as only text was provided. Confidence is moderate-to-high based on textual anomalies; final determination requires institutional investigation.

Verdict

🟠 Highly suspicious — Multiple textual, methodological, statistical, and logical inconsistencies strongly suggest sloppy authorship or potential data manipulation, though no visual image analysis was performed.

Key findings

Copy-paste methodology: Section 2.3 claims lncRNA sequencing via Ribo-Zero rRNA depletion, yet the protocol explicitly states '*the mRNA is fragmented into small pieces*' and describes first/second-strand cDNA steps consistent with poly-A mRNA-seq.
Impossible cell culture formulation: Section 2.1 lists 90% RPMI 1640 + 1% gentamicin/streptomycin + 10% FBS = 101%.
Statistical paradox in Table 3: Rdm1 shows Fold change = 4.157 with P > 0.05; CD55 shows Fold change = 0.544 with P > 0.05. Fold changes of this magnitude are virtually always significant in triplicate RNA-seq.
Implausible qPCR variability: ENSMUST00000130486 = 59.4% ± 1.3% (CV ≈ 2%); ENSMUST00000197932 = 1175.4% ± 547.6% (CV ≈ 46%) — same experiment, polar opposites in dispersion.
Cis-regulatory contradiction: NONMMUT012084.2 is reported downregulated after ANXA7 knockdown, yet its cis-target Rdm1 shows a 4.157-fold upregulation (labeled non-significant).
Figure legend errors: Figure 6(b) legend repeats each group label (e.g., 'shRNA-JNK, shRNA-JNK'); Figure 2(c)(d) misspell 'shRNA' as 'snRNA'.

Evidence highlights

Direct quote from Section 2.3: '*the mRNA is fragmented into small pieces*' — terminology specific to poly-A mRNA-seq, not Ribo-Zero total/lncRNA-seq.
Section 2.1 culture medium arithmetic: 90 + 1 + 10 = 101.
Table 3 numeric evidence: Rdm1 Fold change = 4.157, P > 0.05; CD55 Fold change = 0.544, P > 0.05.
qPCR numerical evidence: 59.4% ± 1.3% vs 1175.4% ± 547.6%.
Figure 6(b) legend duplication of three experimental groups; 'snRNA' typos in Figure 2(c)(d).
DOI: 10.1155/2020/5747923.

Notes

Limitations: Only the text (JYL.pdf) was reviewed; no Western blot or microscopy images were inspected for splicing, duplication, or background anomalies. Western blot, qPCR amplification plots, and RNA-seq raw FASTQ files were not independently accessed.
The 4.157-fold / P > 0.05 result could theoretically arise from N = 2 replicates with extreme variance, but this would itself be a serious methodological concern.
Authors should be requested to provide raw RNA-seq FASTQ data, full qPCR replicate Ct values, and original uncropped images to resolve these concerns.
Final determination of academic misconduct requires investigation by the publisher (Hindawi) or the authors' institution.