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