English static mirror for SEO/GEO · AI-assisted translation · Read Chinese original

Integrity Review: 'Metabolome integrated with transcriptome, and genome analysis revealed higher accumulations of phytoalexins enhance resistance against Magnaporthe oryzae in new Zhefang rice variety diantun 506' (DOI: 10.1186/s12870-025-06856-5)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: Highly suspicious. This BMC Plant Biology 2025 paper by Owais Iqbal et al. combines metabolomics, transcriptomics and genomics of rice varieties D502 and D506 challenged with Magnaporthe oryzae. The review, conducted from text only (original high-resolution images unavailable), flagged five issues. (1) The DAM–DEG correlation network in Figure 6 uses an implausible Pearson |r| > 0.09 threshold, equivalent to R² ≈ 0.0081 (≈0.81% variance explained), yet authors describe these as 'strong connections.' (2) DAM filtering logic is self-contradictory: 'VIP > 1, P ≤ 0.05, fold change > 2, and FC > 0.5' cannot both hold. (3) The claim '420 DAMs (≈55%) shared' is mathematically approximate and indicative of loose data handling. (4) Materials and inoculation design duplicate the team's own 2025 paper (ref [13]), suggesting redundant ('salami') publication. (5) Text artifacts ('i dentif i c a t i o n') indicate copy-paste assembly. Confidence is moderate; image-based duplication cannot be assessed. Authors and editors should clarify thresholds, FC criteria, and overlap with ref [13].

Verdict

Highly suspicious. Multiple statistical, methodological, and writing irregularities were identified from text alone. The most serious is the use of a Pearson correlation threshold of |r| > 0.09 to build a putative 'strong' DAM–DEG interaction network (Figure 6), which is statistically indefensible. Methodological descriptions show copy-paste artifacts. Image integrity and raw data cannot be assessed without the original figures and supplementary tables.

Key findings

  • Statistically indefensible correlation threshold. Pearson |r| > 0.09 corresponds to R² ≈ 0.0081 (≈0.81% of variance explained), indistinguishable from random noise. Calling these edges 'strong connections' misrepresents the analysis.
  • Self-contradictory DAM filter criteria. The methods state DAMs were identified by 'VIP > 1, P-value ≤ 0.05, fold change > 2, and FC > 0.5.' FC > 2 and FC > 0.5 cannot both be selection rules; this appears to be an unedited copy-paste error.
  • Mathematically loose overlap claim. Reported 588 (D502) and 595 (D506) DAMs and '≈55% overlap' (420) only holds for Venn-diagram union (588+595−420 = 763, 420/763 ≈ 55.04%); phrasing as 'approximately' is ambiguous and suggests imprecise bookkeeping.
  • Possible redundant (salami) publication. Materials, inoculation regime (13-strain mix, 48 h sampling), and D502 vs D506 comparison mirror reference [13], a 2025 BMC Plant Biology paper by the same group, indicating the transcriptome and metabolome may have been split from one experiment into two publications.
  • Copy-paste artifacts in text. Phrase 'i dentif i c a t i o n of the ORF region' near the NCBI ORF finder description suggests PDF/web extraction with watermark or formatting residue, undermining confidence in the originality of the methods section.
  • Evidence highlights

  • Correlation threshold: 'a Pearson correlation coefficient > 0.09 or <−0.09' used to define DAM–DEG interactions feeding Figure 6; result described as showing 'strong connection.'
  • DAM criteria: Methods state 'DAMs were identified with VIP > 1, P-value ≤ 0.05, fold change > 2, and FC > 0.5.'
  • Counts: D502 = 588 DAMs; D506 = 595 DAMs; '420 DAMs approximately (55%) were associated with both varieties.'
  • Reference overlap: Reference [13] is the team's own 2025 BMC Plant Biology paper; same varieties (D502, D506), same 13-strain M. oryzae inoculum, same 48 h sampling window described in 'Previously, we performed integrated transcriptome and genome analysis... [13].'
  • Typographic artifact: 'i dentif i c a t i o n of the ORF region' in Protein/sequence/3D structure analysis subsection.
  • DOI preserved: 10.1186/s12870-025-06856-5.
  • Notes

  • Image-based checks (Western blot duplication, microscopy manipulation, figure reuse) were not possible because original high-resolution figures were not supplied; the report relies solely on text, statistical logic, and methodological consistency.
  • The 0.09-threshold issue alone is sufficient to invalidate the network-level conclusions of Figure 6 unless authors can justify this cutoff with permutation testing or external validation.
  • The FC contradiction is a clear editorial-level methods error that should be corrected before the network claims are considered credible.
  • The overlap with reference [13] warrants verification by BMC Plant Biology editors regarding sample provenance, RNA-seq reuse, and proper cross-citation.
  • Confidence is moderate and limited by the absence of raw metabolomics data, correlation matrices, and figure files. Final determination of misconduct requires investigation by the journal/institution.

Tags

#academic-fraud#statistics#correlation-manipulation#salami-publishing#copy-paste#methodology#plant-biology#image-not-assessed

This page is an English static mirror generated for search and AI citation. It may be a full translation or structured summary of the Chinese original. Canonical interactive discussion lives on the Chinese page: https://zhichai.net/report/geng_geng_6a1e7cb4370bf8.41497835