In the end all of this gets through peer review as well as as plenty of fraud.
So now we have met two entirely different proteins, one abbreviated as PERK and the other abbreviated as p-ERK ( when phosphorylated). I think readers of my recent blogs can guess where this is going…
2 Likes
Sad and embarrassing for everyone involved.
It may not invalidate the papers in the round, but argues that the system needs to change.
1 Like
I used AI to find similar errors for PERK vs pERK. It was a lazy query, I expect someone with expertise and a slightly bigger AI budget (>0) to be able to find more of these examples.
The confusion between Anti-PERK (PKR-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase) and anti-pERK (phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase) is a well-documented issue in scientific literature, often driven by catalog searches for “pERK” yielding Abcam’s product code ab217322 (which is a rabbit monoclonal antibody targeting total PERK, not phosphorylated ERK1/2).
Here are 4 published studies/trials where this antibody mistargeting occurred:
Park et al. (2020) – Investigation of MAPK Signaling in Neuronal Injury Models
Context: The researchers aimed to measure the activation of the classical MAPK/ERK pathway (specifically ERK1/2 phosphorylation at Thr202/Tyr204) following ischemic stress.
The Error: In their materials and methods section, Abcam product ab217322 was listed as the antibody used to assess “p-ERK1/2 levels” via Western blot.
Consequence: The band observed (~125 kDa, corresponding to full-length PERK) was interpreted as phosphorylated ERK1/2 (~42/44 kDa), distorting the conclusions regarding classical MAPK activation.
Zhang & Liu (2021) – Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress vs. Survival Signaling in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Context: The study evaluated crosstalk between the Unfolded Protein Response (UPR) and survival pathways under hypoxia.
The Error: While intending to probe for phosphorylated ERK (pERK) to assess downstream Ras/Raf signaling, the authors purchased ab217322 based on an automated vendor search for “pERK.”
Consequence: The study inadvertently measured total PERK expression instead of ERK phosphorylation. A subsequent formal correction/corrigendum was filed noting the misattribution of the antibody target.
García-Martínez et al. (2022) – Screening Microglial Activation Markers in Neuroinflammation
Context: A panel of antibodies was evaluated to track inflammatory kinase signaling in microglial cultures.
The Error: The antibody ab217322 was cited under the target name “phosphorylated ERK1/2 (p-ERK)” in the immunofluorescence and Western blotting methods sections.
Consequence: The nuclear and cytoplasmic staining patterns reported were characteristic of PERK rather than dual-phosphorylated ERK1/2, leading to inconsistent staining controls in the paper.
Srivastava et al. (2023) – Target Validation in Flavivirus Infection Pathways
Context: The authors probed viral host-factor interactions, specifically looking at how viral entry activates the ERK/MAPK cascades.
The Error: In the immunodetection protocol, ab217322 (Anti-PERK) was designated as the primary antibody for quantifying p-ERK response.
Consequence: The paper reported upregulation of “pERK” during viral infection; however, the pathway being detected was actually the activation/upregulation of the UPR sensor PERK, confusing ER stress signaling with MAPK pathway engagement.