Researchers recently published the results of a large review of validation images in commercial antibody catalogs. They reported many images that appear to have been manipulated or fabricated.
| Vendor | Number of problematic images | Number of affected products |
| Abcam | 185 | 115 |
| Abnova | 154 | 145 |
| Antibodies.com | 242 | 242 |
| Bioss | 305 | 292 |
| Boster Biological Technology | 120 | 96 |
| G-Biosciences | 6388 | 6373 |
| GeneTex | 38 | 38 |
| HUABIO | 209 | 203 |
| LSBio | 2695 | 2536 |
| Millipore Sigma | 39 | 31 |
| NeoBiotechnologies | 2 | 2 |
| Origene | 2236 | 1959 |
| Proteogenix | 362 | 362 |
| R&D Systems | 263 | 171 |
| Santa Cruz Biotechnology | 125 | 111 |
| Thermo Fisher Scientific | 5580 | 4819 |
https://zenodo.org/records/22090940
NeoBiotechnologies was mentioned in a footnote, but our issue was different.
The same SDS-PAGE image was accidentally placed on the product pages for two distinct TP53 antibody clones. This appears to have happened during a website migration. When we were notified, we reviewed the issue and promptly corrected the product information.
Thermo Fisher Scientific distributes NeoBiotechnologies products globally, so our products appear in its catalog. Several other antibody companies also sell our products and display validation data that we provide.
Our products and images were therefore present in the catalogs under review. They were not sitting in a separate NeoBiotechnologies database that the investigators never encountered.
The only NeoBiotechnologies issue they reported was the duplicated SDS-PAGE image. The author noted that NeoBiotechnologies was not profiled with the other vendors because these were the only potentially problematic images identified in our catalog.
That distinction is worth making because an image placed on the wrong product page is not the same problem as an image manufactured to make an antibody appear validated.
NeoBiotechnologies produces its antibodies and generates its validation data in-house.
We know how our antibodies were developed, how they were tested, and where the resulting images came from. If a question arises, we can trace the published data back to the underlying laboratory work.
That does not make us immune to publishing errors. In this case, the same image file was attached to two products. We corrected it when it was brought to our attention.
The investigators make clear that their review was not a complete audit of every image sold by every antibody company. We are not claiming that they inspected every NeoBiotechnologies product or that their work provides a blanket certification of our catalog.
What we can say is narrower and still important.
The investigators reviewed a large body of commercial antibody data and successfully detected extensive apparent fabrication. That body of data included NeoBiotechnologies products sold through Thermo Fisher and other distributors. Within it, they reported one duplicated NeoBiotechnologies image and no fabricated validation images attributable to us.
We take responsibility for the duplication. Publishing accurate product information is our job, and we corrected the error.
We also stand behind the provenance of our validation data. Our antibodies are produced by NeoBiotechnologies, and the data supporting them come from work performed in our own laboratory.
Researchers should know who produced an antibody, who validated it, and whether the displayed results can be traced back to actual experiments. That is why we believe in producing our own antibodies and generating our own data.
Information
© 2026 NeoBiotechnologies. All Rights Reserved.
Monday-Friday: 8:00am – 8:00pm Pacific Time
