PLOS One retracts moth epigenetics study over data and 40-generation claims

The PLOS One editors have retracted a 2024 study that reported temperature-induced epigenetic inheritance in moths, citing concerns about the original images, the underlying phenotype dataset and the evidence supporting persistence of the effect through 40 generations. The retraction notice, published on October 20, 2026, says these issues call into question “the reliability and integrity of the reported results.” The original article described a change in antenna length that the authors proposed was generated by temperature, transmitted across many subsequent generations and mediated by RNA. PLOS One did not publish a partial retraction, saying that persistence for 40 generations had been presented as a key finding.

The editors said the moths in Figure 1A and Figure 1B appeared more similar than would be expected from independent specimens, while records in the Reversed tab of S1 Data appeared more repetitive than expected. The corresponding author said the figure had been assembled from black-and-white photographs and scanned material as an illustrative comparison intended to show the gross visual difference between the short- and long-antenna phenotypes. The author stated that the images did not originate from experimental image datasets and were not used for phenotype scoring, morphometric measurements, frequency calculations, statistical analysis or any other quantitative result.

However, the author could not provide the raw, unprocessed acquisition files for the figure or photographs of each phenotype. Photographs and scanning electron microscopy images from a different or related study were supplied instead, but PLOS said these did not resolve the concern about Figure 1. The supplementary-dataset concerns involved records that had been kept as sex- and phenotype-specific counts within each clutch rather than as entries assigning a unique identifier to every offspring.

The author provided clutch-level counts for 233 clutches analyzed in generations F1–F3, F5 and F12. During that process, the author reported that 24 of the 233 clutches included in the original analysis had been inadvertently omitted from S1 Data. Three errors were also identified: copied cell references that shifted during formula propagation, asymmetric individuals omitted from the denominator, and incomplete summation of sex-specific short-antenna counts.

The author said all percentages had been recalculated directly from recovered phenotype counts and that the complete set of 233 clutches had been independently reanalyzed. This changed the classification of one clutch, after which an updated dataset was submitted to PLOS. Editorial review of that corrected dataset nevertheless raised further concerns about its reliability, and the retraction notice did not report the recalculation as preserving the original results.

Much of the concern centered on a mismatch between the study’s central 40-generation claim and its available supporting records. The original methods stated that 10–20 lines in each generation, always descendants of one pair carrying epigenetic information, were monitored for 40 generations. Precise counts of the epigenetic trait, called the short-antenna wild-type phenotype and designated saWT, and the non-epigenetic short-antenna phenotype, designated sa, were reported for F1–F3, F5 and F12.

Generations F4, F6–F11 and F13–F40 were only observed, without precise counts of the two phenotypes, according to the methods. The corresponding author maintained that persistence of the phenotype was observed through F40 and offered to remove all evidentiary claims about persistence beyond F12. PLOS said that, without those records, the observations beyond F12 could not be independently verified and that it would not accept a partial retraction because 40-generation persistence was one of the article’s key findings.

The retraction therefore withdrew a study whose proposed result combined a temperature-generated epigenetic effect, transmission over many successive generations and an RNA-mediated mechanism. The notice separately identifies problems with the illustrative images, the reliability of the phenotype-count data and the lack of verifiable records for the claimed inheritance through F40. It does not provide results establishing whether the proposed effect occurred or persisted; instead, it states that the available evidence is insufficient to support the reported results and conclusions reliably.

The original authors did not respond to the retraction unanimously. PG agreed with it, JP did not, and SP and VP either did not respond directly or could not be reached.

Subject of Research: A retracted study reporting temperature-induced, RNA-mediated epigenetic inheritance across generations in moths

Article Title: Retraction: An epigenetic change in a moth is generated by temperature and transmitted to many subsequent generations mediated by RNA

Article References: The PLOS One Editors (2026). Retraction: An epigenetic change in a moth is generated by temperature and transmitted to many subsequent generations mediated by RNA. PLOS One, 21(10), e0360873. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0360873

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360873

Keywords: epigenetic inheritance, moths, RNA-mediated inheritance, temperature effects, antenna phenotypes, data integrity, supplementary datasets, research retraction, PLOS One, Retraction, epigenetic, change