One focus of the editors’ concerns was the content of Tables 6 and 7 in the original article. The reported standard errors of the mean appeared unusually repetitive. The notice does not provide the underlying values or reproduce those tables, so it does not explain why the pattern arose or quantify the extent to which it affected the reported results.

The editors also compared unpublished image material submitted with the original article against figures published in other papers. They reported that a heart panel labeled “C Heart” appeared similar to a panel labeled “Fig 2 CG:Heart” in another article, while a liver panel labeled “C Liver” appeared similar to “Fig 2:TR Liver.” In addition, a control-group panel in the unpublished material resembled a control-group panel in another paper that had itself been retracted.

The corresponding author stated that errors were made while preparing the figures for the original manuscript and that the images were corrected in subsequent revisions. For similarities involving material from another publication, the author said that the material had been used without the data owner’s authorization. The notice records these explanations from the author but does not state that they independently resolved the identified similarities or established the reliability of the original published images.

Editorial assessment of the study continued after the author provided the individual-level data underlying the article’s graphs and tables. The notice says that examination of these data raised additional concerns about their integrity and reliability. In light of those findings, the PLOS One Editors retracted the article. ZC and MA responded during the process but did not clarify whether they agreed or disagreed with the concerns, according to the notice. Six other named authors either did not respond directly or could not be reached.

The retraction notice does not describe the experimental model, the preparation of the Cissus tuberosa ethanol extract, the measured inflammatory markers, the methods used to assess neuroprotection or the reported outcomes in enough detail to evaluate the original biological conclusions independently. The article’s reported potential therefore should not be treated as an established effect of the extract in Parkinson’s disease. The notice specifically documents editorial concerns about the numerical summaries, image panels and underlying data used to support the article, rather than presenting new experimental evidence about the extract.

Subject of Research: Retraction of a Parkinson’s disease-model study reporting anti-neuroinflammatory and neuroprotective potential for Cissus tuberosa ethanol extract

Article Title: Retraction: Anti-neuroinflammatory and neuroprotective potential of Cissus tuberosa ethanol extract in Parkinson’s disease model through the modulation of neuroinflammatory markers

Article References: The PLOS One Editors (2026). Retraction: Anti-neuroinflammatory and neuroprotective potential of Cissus tuberosa ethanol extract in Parkinson’s disease model through the modulation of neuroinflammatory markers. PLOS One, 21(10), e0360896. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0360896

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360896

Keywords: PLOS One, retraction, Cissus tuberosa, Parkinson’s disease model, neuroinflammation, data integrity, image panels, standard errors, individual-level data, Anti-neuroinflammatory, neuroprotective, potential