[raverbashing]

I would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob) - or if data in a datasheet (something like test specificity, level of detection, etc) was wrong

Now, if while preparing the images they needed to do some editorial choices (or it is well possible a person in the editorial group was told to 'enhance the images' but wasn't aware of the details) because of limitations in doing the experiment then this is probably not a big deal

[flobosg]

> I would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob)

Or if more than one blob is present (i.e. blobs at different molecular weights) for a supposedly selective and specific antibody that should show exactly one blob on the blot.

> Now, if while preparing the images they needed to do some editorial choices

Editorial choices on raw scientific data are a big no-no.

[raverbashing]

> Editorial choices on raw scientific data are a big no-no.

I don't think you can find a picture in an article that hasn't been photoshopped in one way or another (which is mostly ok as long as it is not misleading)

Edit: TF's reply is interesting https://www.thermofisher.com/es/es/home/life-science/antibod...

Basically they say they are reviewing the images

[flobosg]

Usually, journals require raw, unmodified data to be deposited as supplementary information.

[raverbashing]

Yes, as supplementary information

(Also journals are usually more rigorous than marketing material)

[flobosg]

> Yes, as supplementary information

Still part of the article.

[bonsai_spool]

Do you work in biology?

> would be more worried if the blotted area was different (the dark blob) - or if data in a datasheet (something like test specificity, level of detection, etc) was wrong

These images are provided on the datasheet and form the basis for the level of detection / specificity claims

[codedokode]

It is obvious that they edited the images to make blobs look shorter vertically. And in some cases, simply copy-pasted non-existing blobs.