Editors Retract 2018 ClC-2 Cerebrovascular Study Over Image Concerns

The journal Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters has retracted a 2018 paper that reported that knocking down the chloride channel ClC-2 prevents cerebrovascular remodeling by inhibiting the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. The retraction note, published on 27 October 2026 as Volume 31, article number 165, states that the Editor-in-Chief no longer has confidence in the reliability of the results and conclusions of the original study.

The original article was published on 27 June 2018 as volume 23, article 29 of the journal, under the title “ClC-2 knockdown prevents cerebrovascular remodeling via inhibition of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway.” Its authors were listed as Jingjing Lu, Feng Xu, Yingna Zhang, Hong Lu and Jiewen Zhang. The retraction note identifies the Editor-in-Chief as the party who retracted the article, and the notice is published open access.

According to the retraction note, concerns were raised after publication regarding figures presented in the article. The first specific concern involved Figure 3C: the AngII panel in that figure appeared highly similar to the AngII + Negative panel in the same panel of the article. The authors responded to that initial concern with a correction, and the article was updated at that time.

The matter did not end with the correction. Further investigation identified additional concerns regarding Figure 3 in the pre-correction version of the paper. Several panels in that figure appeared to partially overlap with Figure 2 in a prior publication. The retraction note lists these overlaps in detail: the Control panel in Figure 3C appeared highly similar to panel 1 in Figure 2C of the earlier paper and to panel 1 in its Figure 2D; the Negative panel appeared highly similar to panel 3 in Figure 2C; the siClC-2 panel appeared highly similar to panel 4 in Figure 2C; and the AngII panel appeared highly similar to panel 2 in both Figure 2C and Figure 2D of the prior publication.

The same detailed accounting continues for the remaining panels of Figure 3C. The AngII + Negative panel appeared highly similar to panel 2 in Figure 2C and to panel 2 in Figure 2D of the earlier paper, and the AngII + siClC-2 panel appeared highly similar to panel 4 in Figure 2D. In total, the notice documents nine point-by-point similarities between Figure 3C of the retracted article and Figure 2 of the prior publication.

Further similarities were subsequently identified between the article and additional prior publications, cited in the notice as references 3, 4 and 5. Within the retracted paper’s Figure 4, the GAPDH lane of the western blot in Figure 4C appeared highly similar to the Akt lane of the western blot in Figure 4B of reference 3, and the GSK-3β lane of the western blot in Figure 4D appeared highly similar to the Flag lane of the western blot in Figure 4C of the same publication.

The concerns extended to Figure 5 of the article as well. The LacZ panel appeared highly similar to the iPLA₂β-Wt Saline panel in Figure 2A of reference 4; the sh-ClC-2 panel appeared highly similar to the iPLA₂β-Tg Saline panel in the same figure; the AngII + LacZ panel appeared highly similar to the iPLA₂β-Tg Ang II panel; and the AngII + sh-ClC-2 panel appeared highly similar to the iPLA₂β-Wt Ang II panel. In addition, the GAPDH lane of the western blot in Figure 1D of the article appeared to partially overlap with the left-hand side of the total Akt lane in Figure 5c of reference 5.

When asked to respond, the authors acknowledged that some of the concerns are valid, according to the retraction note. However, they were not able to provide satisfactory explanations or the raw data needed to address the concerns raised. On that basis, the Editor-in-Chief concluded that confidence in the reliability of the results and conclusions could no longer be maintained, and the article was retracted.

The notice adds one final detail about the authors’ conduct during the process: they have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction. The retraction note itself does not describe any findings of misconduct against specific individuals, nor does it detail which authors acknowledged the concerns; it documents only the figure concerns, the authors’ partial acknowledgement, the failure to provide satisfactory explanations or raw data, and the resulting loss of confidence in the paper’s findings.

For readers of the original 2018 study, the retraction means that its central claim — that ClC-2 knockdown prevents cerebrovascular remodeling through inhibition of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway — can no longer be relied upon as reported. The retraction note, published open access with a link to the original article’s record, now stands as the authoritative notice on the status of that paper.

Subject of Research: Retraction of a 2018 study on ClC-2 knockdown, cerebrovascular remodeling and the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway

Article Title: Retraction Note: ClC-2 knockdown prevents cerebrovascular remodeling via inhibition of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway

Article References: Lu, J., Xu, F., Zhang, Y., Lu, H., & Zhang, J. (2026). Retraction Note: ClC-2 knockdown prevents cerebrovascular remodeling via inhibition of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters, 31(1), Article 165. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11658-026-01056-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s11658-026-01056-x

Keywords: retraction, ClC-2, cerebrovascular remodeling, Wnt/β-catenin signaling, image integrity, Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters, western blot, figure duplication, Editor-in-Chief, open access, 2018 article, research misconduct