ArticleVirus genes2025
Raising Awareness About Compromised Cell Lines, Better Science Practices, and Accountability.
Article in Virus genes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This comment raises concerns about the validity and reproducibility of a publication by Li et al. in Virus Genes (60:488-500, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-024-02096-1 ; PMID: 39103702), which aimed to investigate the role of aquaporin-3 in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and its regulation by the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1). The central criticism focuses on using the CNE-1, CNE-2, and HONE-1 cell lines, which are recognized as unreliable for NPC research. There is an alarming prevalence of publications that continue to utilize these compromised cell lines, impeding genuine advancements in understanding NPC. Beyond the cell line authenticity issue, the study lacks relevant methodological information and justification for experimental design choices. We emphasize the need for raw data availability and comprehensive methodological information to ensure reproducibility. Ultimately, this comment calls for a more rigorous and multi-faceted approach to quality control in scientific publishing and embracing Open Science principles to ensure the reliability of published research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40745115What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.