※ 引述《mitbbsuser (mitbbs user)》之銘言： : Beware: some images are huge and IE or other explorers might zoom out them : automatically. For the best result, pls view at 100% size. Thank you. : The original Figure2C published on Cell with illustrations : http://capa.zoto.com/img/original/c910fb371829d67b09568e6cb247292d-.jpg : Then here comes the photoshop difference blending results: : http://capa.zoto.com/img/original/50d0d142ac7730621cfb559c2080c14b-.jpg : http://capa.zoto.com/img/original/95ca4d2a9ca9012fc24a91e00df2fe2c-.jpg : http://capa.zoto.com/img/original/f53e3344f877c27a8fab385b6b1a96e8-.jpg Not really. All of the "identical pattern" regions marked in the published figure are actually not "identical" but just "similar" if they are enlarged in a very high resolution and are compared pixel by pixel. In my opinion, only the edge between the -30 and -40 regions of Fig2c is questionable. : Then here comes the so called repeat figure2C-1, which you could download : yourself through the link lnalna posted. : http://capa.zoto.com/img/original/f13297b8b79dc41a1a42b9c57330fa3a-.jpg : then a little photoshop adjustment like this: : http://capa.zoto.com/img/original/a531df68a7ec7a0a46091555b5cbda00-.jpg : here is the final result: : http://capa.zoto.com/img/original/1aebae3ec7ba8b874ae6aaf935ba596b-.jpg It is questionable. I agree. : Some people also use Matlab Corr(2) calculation and ImageJ Frourier Transform : to analyse the original figure2C published on Cell and got the same conclusion. : I won't make any conclusion here. Judge yourself with your eyes. : btw, the methodology shown here is exactly the same method which the top : journals use, like JCB. In this case, statistical correlation coefficient can't tell much because these regions are expected to be natually similar, i.e., the correlation coefficient should be natually very high. So, unless you can get 100% correlation coefficient, you can never confidently say the high correlation coefficient is due to the nature similarity of these regions, or the human manipulation. BTW, appealing to authority is a kind of logical fallacy. Yes, I mean your last sentence. : If you want to argue about "false positive" due to the image compression. : You'd better not. The original images are 500dpi, 8bit, grayscale TIFF. : and JPEG compression could only give you some 8*8 squares. Here is a control : from another Gel done by the other lab. : http://capa.zoto.com/img/original/98feb861409c0c300478321085f28812-.jpg : although the bands are quite similar between different lanes, the background : patterns are obviously different. Strictly, this "control" can't prove anything. You can just say usually there may be some differences between similar lanes, but you can't say it's 100% a fake if only a few differences can be found in pixel level between similar lanes. At last, I would like to give some suggestions to people on mitbbs: Question the points which are really questionable with precise words. Don't just indiscreetly attact every points you think you are able to attact with overstated and emotional words. -- ※ 編輯: nightcatman 來自: 163.1.159.199 (12/17 04:05)