Pretty interesting story in @ScienceMagazine this week on what looks like a serious problem in the senescence field. More than 400 papers apparently used the wrong antibody for p16-INK4a — an antibody that actually recognizes a completely different, unrelated protein (a component of the actin cytoskeleton). This affects work on senescent cell accumulation in aging and disease, and most critically, some of the evidence base for senolytic drug research. What concerns me most is that many of these papers somehow got the "right" answer using the wrong antibody. That's not just an innocent reagent mix-up — it raises real questions about data fabrication or selective reporting in at least some of these labs. I've commented before about how ignoring data that doesn't fit the narrative is a major problem in certain areas of the longevity literature (e.g. sirtuins and NAD), and here a potentially widespread example in senescence. Hopefully journals will investigate and retract as necessary, but based on my experience that seems optimistic. One concrete fix is that journals should flag problematic antibody product codes at submission so reviewers can catch this before publication. Reviewers should absolutely be on the lookout for this going forward. However, these fixes won't address the larger problem. We need to understand how these scientists got the results they wanted and published them over 400 times (!!!): whether through intentional deception, incompetence, accident, or some legitimate explanation. Credit for discovering this goes to @addictedtoigno1 who wrote about it first on his blog: For Better Science science.org/content/article/…?