The original article, published on 7 August 2019, reported that NR1B2, a member of the nuclear receptor family, appeared to restrain the growth and spread of kidney renal clear cell carcinoma cells. According to the study, manipulating the expression of this gene influenced the migratory and invasive behaviour of cancer cells in laboratory models, and the authors linked these effects to regulation of the Hippo pathway effector YAP, a transcriptional co-activator with well-established roles in organ size control, tissue regeneration and tumour progression. Findings of this kind attract attention because clear cell renal cell carcinoma frequently metastasises and often develops resistance to existing therapies, making any apparent tumour-suppressive pathway a potential lead for drug development.

The concerns that ultimately ended the paper’s life centred on its figures. According to the retraction note, several panels in the study appeared to contain overlapping or duplicated image regions, a category of irregularity that image-integrity specialists and journal editors treat as a serious red flag. In Figure 3I, the upper left section of the PLKO/Migration panel and the lower right section of the PLKO/Invasion panel appeared to overlap. In Figure 5B, the 786-O SH-NR1B2 band of NR1B2 and the SW839 OE-NR1B2 band of P-YAP appeared to overlap when one of them was flipped. These are the kinds of discrepancies that are difficult to explain as innocent technical artefacts, because they suggest that the same underlying image data may have been used to represent different experimental conditions.

Further irregularities spanned multiple figures. The retraction note states that the OE-NR1B2/Invasion and PWPI/Migration panels of Figure 3H appeared to overlap with the OE-NR1B2(+) Si-YAP(-)/Invasion and OE-NR1B2(-) Si-YAP(-)/Migration panels of Figure 5G, respectively. In practical terms, this means that images presented as evidence for distinct experimental comparisons, in different figures of the paper, appeared to derive from the same source material. Migration and invasion assays are foundational experiments in cancer biology: they measure how cancer cells move through membranes or matrices, and their results are used to argue that a gene promotes or suppresses metastatic behaviour. If the images underpinning those assays are duplicated or rearranged, the central claims of the paper lose their evidentiary foundation.

When the concerns were raised, the authors were given an opportunity to respond. According to the retraction note, they provided some source data on request from the Publisher, but this material was judged insufficient to address the issues that had been identified. In the world of research integrity, source data, the raw image files, numerical readouts and laboratory records behind a published figure, is the ultimate arbiter. If original files can be produced and they match the published figures and the described experiments, concerns can often be resolved. When the supplied material falls short, editors are left with published images that show apparent duplication and no adequate explanation, and the standard response is retraction.

Compounding the problem, none of the authors responded to any correspondence from the Publisher regarding the retraction. Silence at this stage is significant. Retraction is not supposed to be a punishment imposed without due process; journals typically notify authors, invite comment, and consider any evidence offered before acting. When authors do not engage, editors must make a decision based on the available record. In this case, the combination of multiple overlapping figure panels, incomplete source data and non-response left the Editor-in-Chief with little alternative but to withdraw the paper from the literature.

The retraction carries technical implications for researchers who work on renal cell carcinoma and on the NR1B2 gene. NR1B2, also known in the literature as a retinoic acid receptor-related orphan receptor family member, belongs to a class of ligand-activated transcription factors that regulate gene expression programs involved in metabolism, differentiation and cell growth. Because nuclear receptors are druggable proteins, studies implicating them in cancer suppression often spark interest in pharmacological modulation. The retracted paper’s claim that NR1B2 restrains clear cell renal cell carcinoma progression by regulating YAP signalling would, if validated, have pointed toward a specific signalling axis that could be targeted. Researchers citing the paper will now need to treat its conclusions as unsupported, and any lines of investigation built on its figures will require independent re-examination.

The case also illustrates how the Hippo-YAP pathway became a crowded and competitive area of cancer research, and how that intensity can create pressure that sometimes manifests in the literature as image problems. YAP and its paralog TAZ act as sensors of mechanical and developmental cues, driving expression of genes that promote proliferation and block apoptosis. In many tumour types, including renal cancer, elevated YAP activity is associated with aggressive disease. Demonstrating that an upstream nuclear receptor suppresses YAP would be a coherent and attractive mechanistic story, which is precisely why such a result, once published in an open-access cancer research journal, would be picked up by other groups. The retraction means that this particular story must now be regarded as unproven rather than disproven, but the distinction matters little for scientists deciding whether to invest time and grant money in following it up.

For the broader scientific community, the episode is another data point in the ongoing effort to police the integrity of the biomedical literature. Journals increasingly use automated and manual image forensics to detect duplicated panels, spliced gels and mirrored blots, and readers increasingly report suspicious figures through channels such as PubPeer. Retraction notes like this one, which itemise the specific concerns in detail, serve a dual purpose: they warn researchers away from relying on the retracted findings, and they document the evidentiary basis for the withdrawal so that the decision itself can be scrutinised. The detailed listing of the overlapping panels in Figures 3H, 3I, 5B and 5G in this retraction note follows that transparent convention.

The original article remains accessible online, as is standard practice, but it is now watermarked with the retraction so that readers encountering it are alerted to its status. The retraction note itself, published as Volume 45, article number 209 of the Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, was released on 7 October 2026, more than seven years after the original publication. For patients and clinicians, the practical consequences are limited: no therapy was developed from this paper in the intervening years. For the research record, however, the correction is meaningful. Science advances not only through new discoveries but through the careful removal of results that can no longer be trusted, and this retraction, however late, ensures that the claim that NR1B2 suppresses kidney renal clear cell carcinoma progression will no longer circulate as established fact.

Subject of Research: Retraction of a study on NR1B2 regulation of kidney renal clear cell carcinoma progression

Article Title: Retraction Note: NR1B2 suppress kidney renal clear cell carcinoma (KIRC) progression by regulation

Article References: Yin, L., Li, W., Wang, G., Shi, H., Wang, K., Yang, H., & Peng, B. (2026). Retraction Note: NR1B2 suppress kidney renal clear cell carcinoma (KIRC) progression by regulation. Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, 45(1), Article 209. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-026-03839-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s13046-026-03839-8

Keywords: retraction, kidney cancer, renal cell carcinoma, NR1B2, YAP signalling, research integrity, image duplication, tumour suppressor, cancer biology, Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, figure manipulation, Hippo pathway

The retraction notice, published in the same journal, explains that after publication, concerns were raised regarding image irregularities. When the authors were contacted to clarify the issues, they did not respond. In the world of research integrity, that silence is often decisive. Journals typically give authors an opportunity to explain anomalies in their figures, and when those explanations fail to materialize, editors are left with little choice but to retract. The notice is unambiguous: the editors no longer trust the findings, and the scientific record has been corrected accordingly.

The specific concerns are technical but instructive. According to the retraction notice, a panel in Figure 3B of the retracted paper, labeled as an IL-1 beta condition at a concentration of 10 nanograms per milliliter, appears to overlap with a panel in Figure 6C of a separate 2019 article on nasopharyngeal carcinoma published in Cancer Cell International. Strikingly, the same panel also appears to overlap with a panel in Figure 2D of a second, unrelated paper on pancreatic cancer that has itself since been retracted. In plain terms, identical or nearly identical images seem to have been used to represent entirely different experiments in entirely different disease contexts, spanning osteoarthritis, nasopharyngeal cancer, and pancreatic cancer.

This kind of image duplication is one of the most common triggers for retractions in the modern era of research integrity screening. Western blots, microscopy fields, and other gel-based or imaging outputs are supposed to be unique records of individual experiments. When the same image shows up in multiple papers, or in multiple figures within a single paper, it suggests either careless figure assembly or deliberate fabrication. Software tools and vigilant readers now routinely flag such overlaps, and journals have invested heavily in automated screening pipelines that compare figures across vast swaths of the published literature. What once might have slipped through unnoticed for decades can now be detected within months or years of publication.

The retraction also contains a second, more troubling element: a disputed authorship claim. One of the listed authors, Zhiguang Qiao, stated that he did not contribute to the study and did not consent to being listed as an author of the article. The remaining authors, according to the notice, have not responded to correspondence regarding the retraction. Authorship disputes of this kind raise questions that go beyond the integrity of the data itself. Authorship carries professional credit, responsibility, and accountability, and being listed on a paper without consent is a serious matter. Conversely, when a paper is retracted, every listed author shares in the reputational damage, which is precisely why consent and genuine contribution matter so much.

The original study, published on 7 October 2019, had explored a question of real clinical interest. Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis, affecting hundreds of millions of people worldwide, and its hallmark is the slow degeneration of joint cartilage accompanied by chronic inflammation. Current treatments largely manage symptoms with painkillers and anti-inflammatory drugs, but nothing on the market halts or reverses the underlying disease. That gap has fueled intense interest in natural compounds with anti-inflammatory properties, and acteoside has been one of the candidates. Found in plants such as those used in traditional medicine systems, acteoside had been reported in various laboratory studies to modulate inflammatory signaling, and the JAK/STAT pathway, a chain of molecular interactions that transmits signals from the cell surface to the nucleus, is a well-established regulator of immune and inflammatory responses. Drugs targeting this pathway are already approved for conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, so the hypothesis that a plant compound might act similarly in osteoarthritis was scientifically plausible.

Plausible, however, is not the same as demonstrated. The retraction does not merely erase a single data point; it removes the evidentiary basis for the paper’s central claim that acteoside inhibits inflammatory responses via JAK/STAT signaling in osteoarthritic rats. Readers who encounter the paper in databases or citation lists will now find it flagged as retracted, and responsible researchers will exclude it from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This matters because complementary and alternative medicine research is frequently cited in public discussions of herbal remedies, and retracted findings can linger in the popular imagination long after the formal correction. A retraction notice is a small document, but its function is to stop the spread of unreliable conclusions before they harden into accepted wisdom.

The case also illustrates the interconnected nature of research integrity problems. The two articles whose figures allegedly overlap with the retracted osteoarthritis paper are themselves notable: one, on circular RNA in nasopharyngeal carcinoma, remains in the literature as far as the notice indicates, while the other, a study of solasodine against pancreatic cancer, is explicitly labeled as retracted. When the same images surface across papers from what appear to be different research groups or different disease areas, integrity investigators often look for common threads, such as shared figure-preparation services, paper mills, or overlapping authorship networks. The retraction notice itself does not draw such conclusions, and it would be wrong to speculate beyond what the editors have stated. But the pattern of a single panel appearing in three different disease contexts is exactly the kind of red flag that has, in other cases, led to much larger sweeps of retractions.

For the journal, BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, the retraction is part of a broader reckoning. Journals in the complementary medicine space have faced particular scrutiny in recent years, in part because the field attracts a high volume of submissions and in part because several journals in adjacent areas experienced mass retractions linked to paper mills. Editors have responded with stricter checks at submission, including image forensics, statistical scrutiny, and requirements for raw data. The fact that this retraction was issued years after the original publication, and that the notice was published in 2026 with a new article number and DOI, reflects the often slow but methodical pace of post-publication correction. Investigations take time, correspondence with authors can drag on for months, and legal considerations sometimes complicate matters further.

What should readers take away from this episode? First, that the self-correcting machinery of science, however slow, does function. A paper published in 2019 has been formally retracted, its problems documented, and its authors given the chance to respond. Second, that images are evidence. The figures in a scientific paper are not illustrations; they are the data themselves, and their integrity is inseparable from the integrity of the conclusions. Third, that authorship is a responsibility, not just a credit line, and disputes about who did or did not contribute are treated with seriousness by editors. And finally, that single studies, especially early animal studies of natural compounds, should always be viewed as provisional. The hypothesis that acteoside might calm inflammation in arthritic joints may yet be tested rigorously by other groups with clean data. Until then, the scientific record now accurately reflects what is and is not known, and that accuracy is the foundation on which all future research depends.

Subject of Research: Retraction of a study on acteoside and the JAK/STAT inflammatory pathway in osteoarthritis due to image irregularities

Article Title: Retraction Note: Acteoside inhibits inflammatory response via JAK/STAT signaling pathway in osteoarthritic rats

Article References: Qiao, Z., Tang, J., Wu, W., Tang, J., & Liu, M. (2026). Retraction Note: Acteoside inhibits inflammatory response via JAK/STAT signaling pathway in osteoarthritic rats. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, 26(1), Article 285. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-026-05627-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12906-026-05627-5

Keywords: retraction, acteoside, osteoarthritis, JAK/STAT pathway, research integrity, image duplication, BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, authorship dispute, inflammation, natural compounds, scientific publishing, figure manipulation