Blind spots on western blots: Assessment of common problems in western blot figures and methods reporting with recommendations to improve them
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
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 company or supplier, 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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283 · see citing works
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020 · see citing works
Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.rec.2021.07.010 · Cited by 1,313 · see citing works
What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation
Rossner, M., & Yamada, K. M. (2004) · The Journal of Cell Biology · doi:10.1083/jcb.200406019 · Cited by 412 · see citing works
What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments?
Lazic, S. E., Clarke-Williams, C. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2018) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications
Bik, E. M., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2016) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.00809-16 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Vasilevsky, N. A., Brush, M. H., Paddock, H., Ponting, L., Tripathy, S. J., LaRocca, G. M., & Haendel, M. A. (2013) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.148 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis
Miyakawa, T. (2020) · Molecular Brain · doi:10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2 · Cited by 268 · cited 2× · see citing works
“All journals should routinely request full-length western blot source data prior to publication to ensure these data exist [28].”
BackgroundDimensions: Bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data
Herzog, C., Hook, D., & Konkiel, S. (2020) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00020 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Did a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting?
The NPQIP Collaborative group, Study steering committee, Macleod, M., Sena, E., Howells, D., Macleod, M., Sena, E., Howells, D., Kiermer, V., Swaminathan, S., et al. (2019) · BMJ Open Science · doi:10.1136/bmjos-2017-000035 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Weissgerber, T., Riedel, N., Kilicoglu, H., Labbé, C., Eckmann, P., ter Riet, G., Byrne, J., Cabanac, G., Capes-Davis, A., Favier, B., et al. (2021) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01203-7 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
- 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. L.
- 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 L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLOS Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2022-09-12
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e3001783
- ISSN
- 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7885
- PMC
- PMC9518894
- OpenAlex
- W4295879833
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 31.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2022-09-28)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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 University Alliance within the Excellence Strategy of the federal and state governments (301_TrainIndik)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › 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