送交者: 无语 于 2006-3-28, 16:42:12:
回答: 魏于全PNAS图三 由 trus 于 2006-3-28, 15:45:07:
1. Panel A: it seems to me that he use recombinant VEGF to test the specificity of positive sera. Why there's no coomassie blue staining to show his recombinant proteins indeed exist and run predicted position? Of course he could argue that reviewers didn't raise this question. PNAS' reviewers are not as serious as other journals' reviewer.
2. Pane B: obviously it is reblot of membrane in panel A. why he didn't parallel load same samples and directly detect with negative sera? after striping, the result is much more suspicious, espacially for VEGF188 band, which is very weak in positive sera stain.
3.Panel C. this time he use reblot or not?
4.different VEGF proteins were separated very well, actually, too good to be true. What is the percentage of his sds-page gel? Does anybody know well about VEGFs and their electro-mobility properties? previously i expect they run similiar position.
5. the VEGF164 band in panel A looks most suspicious: its orientation doesn't consistant to other bands. On same membrane, most likely all bands will have similiar orientation.
6. all in all, his result is too clean. his sera works better than many polyclonal antibody using pure protein or piptide as antigen.
I have to say it is very difficult to catch him this time.