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

Blind spots on western blots: Assessment of common problems in western blot figures and methods reporting with recommendations to improve them

Open access
Kroon, Cristina, Breuer, Larissa, Jones, Lydia, An, Jeehye, Akan, Ayça, Mohamed Ali, Elkhansa Ahmed, Busch, Felix, Fislage, Marinus +9 more·2022·PLOS Biology

Published 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001783

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Cites

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.
Venue
PLOS Biology
Published
2022-09-12
Volume
20
Issue
9
Pages
e3001783
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
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
Open access
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