Wounds heal faster with snail slime. That at least wrote an interdisciplinary team of Egyptian scientists, from two universities in Alexandria in May 2022 in the journal membranes.
They mixed nanofibers and nanosilver particles with the slime of the pasta snail (Eobania vermiculata) and tested it in various compositions on superficial wounds applied experimentally in rats. Conclusion: the substance accelerates healing and at the same time inhibits bacterial growth.
Everything seems fine until September last year suddenly a question pops up from a fellow scientist on the scientific discussion website Pubpeer. There may be something wrong with Figure 11B in the article.
Repeating elements
One questioner wants to know how the authors can explain the repetitive elements that appear to be in the microscopic cross-section of a rat skin wound. Is a higher resolution image available?
The answer will not be available until February. An anonymous person shows a photograph of which figure 11B is apparently a crop. That must come from one of the authors. He or she writes: “The only adjustment we made was to make the wound edge a bit clearer […] Ten percent editing is acceptable, because we have not changed the important properties at issue here, namely the damage to the dermis and epidermis.”
A response immediately follows: “The adjustments seem quite substantial to me. The entire wound surface is a Photoshop composition.”
Then one of the authors responds under his own name: “First of all,” writes microbiologist Bassma Elwakil, “no Photoshop was used to remove the dermis or epidermis (ie to create a wound with Photoshop). Second, we understand your concerns, but the wound surface line is already present in the original photo.”
Oil on the fire
It’s fuel on the fire. “Perhaps the authors can explain where the ‘ten percent rule’ comes from,” someone asks. After Elwakil explains that an “international editor-in-chief” said this, someone brings up the publication rules of the magazine in question. If image manipulation is found and confirmed after publication, the article must either be corrected or withdrawn, it says.
Then another author steps in, Basant Bakr of the zoology department at Alexandria University. “If you need a scientific explanation for this photo edit, it’s here,” she agrees with Elwakil. “This article contains more than 30 photographs of histopathological work done during the examination, which are indisputable. In fact, the only photo that has received comment is not the subject of the experiment. If it were removed, it would not affect the results.”
The bickering on Pubpeer about the article is still ongoing. It is obvious that figure 11B has been tampered with, but what are the consequences? The waiting is over membranes.