PLOS ONE Retracts Mouse Study After Figure Overlap and Data Integrity Concerns
PLOS ONE has retracted a mouse study examining how high-fat-diet induced insulin resistance affects skeletal muscle and myocardium after post-publication review uncovered overlapping image panels and missing underlying data. The retraction covers the paper by Wang, Dai, Yu, and Xiao, which had presented a comprehensive analysis in C57BL6 mice. The journal’s editors said the problems were serious enough to call the published results into question.
The concerns centered on figures that were meant to depict different experimental conditions. Several panels in Fig 4 and Fig 6 appeared to partially overlap despite being labeled as distinct samples. Similar overlap was also identified in the supporting information, including skeletal muscle panels linked to pAkt and pGSK3β. In a biomedical paper built around tissue morphology and signaling readouts, image provenance is not a minor technical detail; it is part of the evidentiary record. When panels that should represent separate conditions appear to share visual features, confidence in the entire dataset begins to erode.
One sentence in the correction history captures the core problem bluntly: the visual record no longer matched the experimental claims.
The corresponding author acknowledged that errors occurred during preparation of Fig 4, Fig 6, and the S1 File. Original images for the two main figures were submitted, along with updated versions of those figures and the individual-level data said to underlie all of the figures in the article. Editorial review of that material did not resolve the concern. Instead, the assessment raised additional questions about the integrity and reliability of the individual-level data themselves.
Image Duplication Undermined the Figure Set
The problematic panels were not peripheral illustrations. They appeared in figures used to support the paper’s interpretation of tissue injury and metabolic dysfunction under high-fat feeding. Specifically, the following panels were identified as partially overlapping despite representing different experimental conditions: Fig 4 Con-8 TEM(8000×) and Fig 4 Con-10 TEM(15000×) when flipped; Fig 4 Con-8 PAS(200×) and Fig 4 Con-10 PAS(200×); Fig 6 Con-10 HE(400×) and Fig 6 Con-12 HE(400×); and skeletal muscle-PAkt-2 and skeletal muscle-PGSK3β-3 in the supplementary file. Those are not trivial duplications across unrelated sections. They sit directly inside the visual evidence base for the study.
TEM, PAS, and HE are different microscopy or histology readouts, and each carries its own interpretive weight. TEM images are used to evaluate ultrastructural detail. PAS staining helps characterize tissue composition and glycogen-related patterns. HE staining is a standard histologic tool for assessing morphology. When such panels overlap, readers lose assurance that the tissues, fields, or conditions shown are truly distinct. In practical terms, the study’s visual narrative can no longer be trusted to distinguish one biological state from another.
The supporting information was also implicated. S1 File contained panels labeled for skeletal muscle signaling markers, including pAkt and pGSK3β. These signaling pathways matter because they are often used to track insulin action and downstream metabolic responses in muscle tissue. If the images attached to those markers are unreliable, the mechanistic interpretation tied to insulin resistance becomes unstable as well.
Missing Individual-Level Data Deepened the Problem
The publication’s data availability statement said all relevant data were contained within the manuscript and supporting files. That statement did not hold up to scrutiny. The individual-level data used to generate the graphs were not provided with the article, leaving the published plots without a complete auditable trail at the time the concerns emerged.
When a paper relies on quantitative graphs, the raw values behind those graphs are essential. Without them, reviewers cannot verify whether a figure reflects the stated sample set, whether values were transcribed correctly, or whether an apparent effect survives direct inspection of the source data. In a study claiming to map progressive metabolic injury across skeletal muscle and myocardium, that gap is substantial. It prevents independent reconstruction of the results and weakens the chain between observation and conclusion.
Editorial review of the subsequently supplied data did not restore confidence. The editors said the assessment raised additional concerns about the integrity and reliability of those data. The retraction followed from that combined record: duplicated or overlapping figure panels, an incomplete original data package, and unresolved concerns after further review.
What the Retraction Means for the Study’s Claims
The paper addressed a biologically important question: how sustained insulin resistance driven by a high-fat diet may alter muscle structure and cardiac tissue in mice. That topic remains clinically relevant because insulin resistance affects energy handling, tissue metabolism, and organ function across multiple systems. Yet the value of such work depends on clear, reproducible evidence. Once the experimental images and the underlying numerical record become unreliable, the central conclusions lose their footing.
Retraction does not prove intent, but it does mark the published record as unreliable. The journal’s editors stated directly that the concerns called into question the reliability and integrity of the article’s results. All authors did not agree with the retraction, a detail that often appears in formal retraction notices and signals disagreement over the editorial decision even after the journal has acted.
For readers, the practical implication is straightforward: the retracted paper should not be treated as dependable evidence for the progression of high-fat-diet-related changes in skeletal muscle or myocardium. Any downstream citation of the findings would need to account for the fact that the figures and the underlying data did not withstand post-publication review.
The case also reinforces a basic requirement in experimental biomedical publishing. Images, raw values, and figure assembly records are not optional extras. They are the record itself. When those elements fail to align, even a study with a plausible biological premise can no longer support confident scientific inference.
Publication Record and Editorial Action
The retraction was published by the PLOS ONE Editors on November 2, 2026, under the citation Retraction: Insights into the progressive impact of high-fat-diet induced insulin resistance on skeletal muscle and myocardium: A comprehensive study on C57BL6 mice. The original article had appeared in PLoS ONE in 2025 and was later marked retracted. The journal cited the figure overlap, missing individual-level data, and unresolved integrity concerns as the basis for removing the article from the reliable literature.
In the end, the notice leaves a narrow but important clinical-scientific takeaway: when foundational data cannot be verified, mechanistic conclusions about skeletal muscle and myocardial responses to diet-induced insulin resistance cannot stand.