Antibodies don't work. NLRP3 is by far the most studied inflammasome — yet <30% of commercial antibodies were specific. Only 4 of 14 tested antibodies detected NLRP3 specifically. Antibodies must be validated before use. Full report by @YCharOS1 https://t.co/DuQy5TUd2M

Mouse studies often fail to replicate in surprising ways. Let me enumerate some of the ways: 1. Mice handled by male scientists feel less pain. The finding holds true when a female scientist does the experiment but holds a t-shirt, previously worn by a man, near the mouse. The

11 papers retracted from a PhD student. Surprising? Not really. Just check the recent news: 1. The rector of a Spanish university ran a citation-inflation scheme. He was one of Spain’s most-cited academics. Springer Nature retracted 75 papers linked to him in 2024. 2.

PARKIN tags damaged mitochondria for recycling. No PARKIN → neurodegeneration. PARK2 mutations are common in Parkinson’s. Accurate detection of PARKIN is then crucial. Problem: The most used antibodies lack selectivity. Some highly specific ones remain underused.

⚠️ Half of commercial antibodies miss their target! So how do you pick the right one for your experiment? Here’s the solution 👇 Antibody characterization data (all tested in KO cells) are now available at: https://t.co/o6PWjzCYST Tested by @YCharOS1 & @OGA_Community

🔎 Spotted in @SciReports! Researchers from @UFMBI used DSHB's anti-Brp [nc82] mAb in a study on misreported Or56a gene expression in fruit flies caused by Gal4 drivers. 📄 https://t.co/oAZbdway7v 🧫 https://t.co/n3lt5phZLg

Study from @YCharOS1 shows non-animal recombinant antibodies outperform traditional animal-derived monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies. This paves the way for more ethical and reproducible research. Congrats to @YCharOS1 for winning the @NC3Rs prize https://t.co/hcjvOzF8NK

We are so back!!!!

An investigation has identified more than 1,500 research articles produced by a network of Ukrainian companies that could be one of Europe’s largest paper mills https://t.co/6YHLa58Gz0

This provocative article does not mince words. The authors argue that genome sequencing and scRNA-seq yield findings challenging the notion that cancer is a ‘genetic disease’: "... the cancer research community has abandoned deep thinking for deep sequencing" 1/n

🧵Quand la science oublie que les souris 🐁 ne sont pas des lions 🦁 « Le loup et l'agneau brouteront ensemble, le lion, comme le bœuf, mangera de la paille et le serpent aura la poussière pour nourriture. On ne commettra ni mal ni destruction sur toute ma montagne sainte, dit

Our paper identifying evidence of off-target probe binding in the 10x Genomics Xenium Breast Gene Panel is now available as a reviewed preprint at #eLife https://t.co/dQ9FqTMCdY We look forward to revising the paper to incorporate reviewer recommendations and other updates 🧵👇

1/13 🧵 Today, Bindcraft was published in @Nature , one of the most famous AIs in biology for designing protein–protein interactions (PPI). In my opinion. Bindcraft represents one of the most important advances in the post–AlphaFold2 era.

Our latest paper: Tackling paper mills requires us to prevent future contamination and clean up the past – the case of the journal Bioengineered With @deadneanderthal, @SmutClyde, Morten Oksvold, @Thatsregrettab1, and me. https://t.co/Kw7XzegZJC

No driver mutations could be identified in 181 tumors. The authors do not know why. Perhaps, it's an algorithmic failure. Perhaps, it reflects non genetic contributions to carcinogenesis. What do you think ?

@nytimes @carlzimmer Fighting coordinated publication fraud is like ‘emptying an overflowing bathtub with a spoon,’ study coauthor says Scientists can help address the problem in additional ways, Richardson told us. @RetractionWatch https://t.co/zkUV4KaNEF

Press coverage: @NYTimes @carlzimmer Fraudulent Scientific Papers Are Rapidly Increasing, Study Finds A statistical analysis found that the number of fake journal articles being churned out by “paper mills” is doubling every year and a half. https://t.co/TpXWTXmjRV #GiftLink

Fantastic new paper by Reese Richardson et al. "The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly." An enormous amount of work showing the extent of coordinated scientific fraud and involvement of some editors. https://t.co/V3ztvry0pA

In GWAS studies, moving from a significant genomic locus to the driving genetic variants is challenging due to linkage disequilibrium. This review summarizes statistical fine-mapping methods that aim to detect potentially causal variants among sets of candidate variants.

Real science is slow, uncertain, and humbling. It thrives on doubt, failure, revision, and debate. Universities, funders, and journals want the opposite: speed, certainty, confidence, and narrative. So we get bad models, fake breakthroughs, and flashy press releases. And

"Detecting fraud ‘is a job for professionals, not peer reviewers." https://t.co/HneWuL5F2b