The allegations target a study about metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease published in the United States-based international journal Scientific Reports.
Whistleblower Files Formal Complaints Over Scientific Reports Study
The complaint requests an investigation into a research paper titled FK506-binding protein-5 in high-fat diet-induced metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.
The research examines how FKBP5 relates to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), gut microbiota, and immune responses using high-fat diet animal models. The whistleblower discovered the alleged discrepancies while using AI tools to search for recent obesity and gut microbiota studies.
Did you know? Reproducibility checks involve running raw public data through analytical scripts to verify if published charts and findings match independent calculations.
Discrepancies Found in Gut Microbiota Sequencing Data
According to the whistleblower, attempts to re-run analysis using the paper’s disclosed raw data and charts produced results inconsistent with the published text. The whistleblower stated that public data could not reproduce the findings presented in the article. Furthermore, the complaints claim that core data results show high similarity to at least two existing research papers.
Specifically, the whistleblower pointed to gut microbiota sequencing analysis content in the disputed paper. Multiple key values and descriptions allegedly show high similarity to a 2019 study published in PLOS ONE by Guirro and colleagues, titled Effects from diet-induced gut microbiota dysbiosis and obesity can be ameliorated by fecal microbiota transplantation: A multiomics approach. The whistleblower argues that because the two studies utilized different animal models, experimental designs, and data sources, identical large-scale sequencing data warrants formal verification of original records.
University Office of Academic Ethics Opens Formal Investigation
Following a request for supplementary materials in mid-July, the university's committee convened on July 22 to review the formal requirements. Finding the submitted data clear, the committee decided to officially accept the case and launch an investigation.
According to university procedures, the investigation report must be completed within 120 days, putting the expected timeline around October or November, subject to authorized extensions if necessary. When contacted by reporters, the university stated that the case will be handled objectively and fairly in accordance with academic ethics guidelines.
Requested Evidence and Materials for the Inquiry
The whistleblower has requested that investigators secure comprehensive documentation to prevent data loss. According to the complaint, requested materials include original fastq files, BioSample comparison tables, next-generation sequencing (NGS) entrusted testing records, vendor reports, laboratory notebooks, data analysis scripts, submission version records, revision responses, original image files, and communication logs. The whistleblower confirmed to CTWANT that analysis results detailing the inconsistencies were provided to the university upon request, though no further updates have been received.
Frequently Asked Questions
When was the disputed research paper published?
The paper was published in February in the U.S. international journal Scientific Reports.
Who are the authors named in the complaint?
When did the university officially accept the case?
According to school officials, the committee reviewed the case on July 22 and formally initiated an investigation.
What is the timeline for the investigation report?
University guidelines require the investigation report to be completed within 120 days, placing the expected release in October or November.
Stay Updated on Research Integrity News
Subscribe to our newsletter or explore our archives for more breaking reports on academic ethics and scientific research.
Worth a look