PreprintCited by 31Academic Writing and PublishingAcademic Publishing and Open AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Blind spots on western blots: a meta-research study highlighting opportunities to improve figures and methods reporting

Open access
Kroon, Cristina, Breuer, Larissa, Jones, Lydia, An, Jeehye, Akan, Ayça, Mohamed Ali, Elkhansa Ahmed, Busch, Felix, Fislage, Marinus, Ghosh, Biswajit, Hellrigel-Holderbaum, Max, Kazezian, Vartan, Koppold, Alina, Moreira Restrepo, Cesar Alberto, Riedel, Nico, Scherschinski, Lea, Urrutia Gonzalez, Fernando Raúl, Weissgerber, Tracey·2022·PLoS Biology

Preprint — published as 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001783 · Paper page

Abstract

Western blotting is a standard laboratory method used to detect proteins and assess their expression levels. Unfortunately, poor western blot image display practices and a lack of detailed methods reporting can limit a reader’s ability to evaluate or reproduce western blot results. While several groups have studied the prevalence of image manipulation or provided recommendations for improving western blotting, data on the prevalence of common publication practices are scarce. We systematically examined 551 articles published in the top 25% of journals in neurosciences (n=151) and cell biology (n=400) that contained western blot images, focusing on practices that may omit important information. Our data show that most published western blots are cropped and blot source data are not made available to readers in the supplement. Publishing blots with visible molecular weight markers is rare, and many blots additionally lack molecular weight labels. Western blot methods sections often lack information on the amount of protein loaded on the gel, blocking steps and antibody labeling protocol. Important antibody identifiers like source, catalog number or RRID were omitted frequently for primary antibodies, and regularly for secondary antibodies. We present detailed descriptions and visual examples to help scientists, peer reviewers and editors to publish more informative western blot figures and methods. Additional resources include a toolbox to help scientists produce more reproducible western blot data, teaching slides in English and Spanish and an antibody reporting template.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2022.05.13.491761

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 47 · Cited by 31

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. 10.1016/j.ab.2020.113608 · DOI
  2. 10.1038/nbt0693-696 · DOI
  3. 2012, Can we trust western blots?, Lab Times, 2, 41
  4. 10.1371/journal.pone.0135392 · DOI
  5. 10.1126/scisignal.aab1831 · DOI
  6. 10.1155/2019/5214821 · DOI
  7. 10.1038/ncb0404-275 · DOI
  8. 10.1074/jbc.E115.000002 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/bph.14112 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/s41401-020-00539-7 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.proghi.2016.11.001 · DOI
  12. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037777 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1126/scisignal.2005966 · DOI
  14. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0925 · DOI
  15. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.112.203679 · DOI
  16. 10.1089/hyb.2010.0092 · DOI
  17. 10.1371/journal.pone.0094251 · DOI
  18. 10.1369/0022155414530995 · DOI
  19. 10.7717/peerj.148 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001073 · DOI
  21. British Journal of Pharmacology (BJP). Author guidelines for British Journal of Pharmacology: BJP; 2021 [updated 01/11/2022]. Available from: https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/14765381/authorguidelines.html#PREPARING_YOUR.
  22. PLOS biology. Figures: PLOS; 2022 [02/17/2022]. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements.
  23. 10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2 · DOI · Paper page
  24. EMBO Journal. Author Guidelines: EMBO Press; 2022 [04/05/2022]. Available from: https://www.embopress.org/page/journal/14602075/authorguide.
  25. Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC). Collecting and presenting data: JBC; 2022 [04/01/2022]. Available from: http://jbcresources.asbmb.org/collecting-and-presenting-data.
  26. 10.1038/srep13370 · DOI
  27. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002128 · DOI
  28. 10.1002/brb3.417 · DOI
  29. 10.17504/protocols.io.81wgb6z2olpk/v2 · DOI
  30. 10.1136/bmjos-2017-000035 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1177/0023677217718862 · DOI
  32. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001756 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1038/s41591-020-01203-7 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1111/sms.12702 · DOI
  35. 2019, Protein Abundance Determination: An Optimized Western Blot Workflow, Ann Clin Lab Sci, 49, 507
  36. 10.1002/elps.200800720 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1371/journal.pone.0087293 · DOI
  38. 10.1074/jbc.RA119.010472 · DOI
  39. 10.1083/jcb.200406019 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1162/qss_a_00020 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Kroon, C., Breuer, L., Jones, L., An, J., Akan, A., Mohamed Ali, E. A., Busch, F., Fislage, M., Ghosh, B., Hellrigel-Holderbaum, M., Kazezian, V., Koppold, A., Moreira Restrepo, C. A., Riedel, N., Scherschinski, L., Urrutia Gonzalez, F. R., & Weissgerber, T.
Affiliations
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DE)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics (DE)
  • Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Weissgerber, Tracey
Venue
PLoS Biology
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2022-05-13
Volume
20
Issue
9
Pages
e3001783-e3001783
ISSN
1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4295879833
Cited by
31
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
31.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DZNE Pub (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Berlin Institute of Health
  • Berlin University Alliance (301_TrainIndik)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
Western blot, publication practices, image editing, reproducibility, molecular weight markers, peer review
MeSH terms
Antibodies, Neurosciences, Proteins, Blotting, Western, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review