This document discusses evidence of image manipulation and duplication in several papers by authors Tudisco et al. that report on research using genetically modified soybeans in animal feeding studies. Figures from the authors' 2006 PhD thesis appear to have been manipulated by deleting or duplicating lanes, and then reused in modified form in later papers, sometimes with changed species or tissue labels. Controls also show signs of manipulation, such as deletions, splicing, or being reused across multiple figures and papers. The document raises concerns about accuracy and reproducibility of the reported results.

1. Infascelli et al.

2. Document list
1. V. Mastellone, “Destino ed effetti metabolici di DNA transgenico in conigli alimentati con soia geneticamente modificata,” 2006, PhD Thesis.
2. R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. DˇAngelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, and F. Infascelli, “Genetically modified
soya bean in rabbit feeding: detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis,” Anim. Sci., vol. 82, no.
02, pp. 193–199, 2006.
3. R. Tudisco, F. Infascelli, M. I. Cutrignelli, F. Bovera, C. Morcia, P. Faccioli, and V. Terzi, “Fate of feed plant DNA monitored in water buffalo
(Bubalus bubalis) and rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus),” Livest. Sci., vol. 105, no. 1–3, pp. 12–18, Dec. 2006.
4. R. Tudisco, M. I. Cutrignelli, S. Calabrò, A. Guglielmelli, and F. Infascelli, “Investigation on genetically modified soybean (RoundUp Ready) in
goat nutrition: DNA detection in suckling kids,” Ital. J. Anim. Sci., vol. 6, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 380–382, 2007.
5. R. Tudisco, S. Calabrò, F. Bovera, M. I. Cutrignelli, A. Nizza, V. Piccolo, and F. Infascelli, “Detection of plant species-specific dna (barleyand
soybean) in blood muscle tissue, organs and gastrointestinal contents of rabbit,” World Rabbit Sci., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 83–90, 2010.
6. R. Tudisco, V. Mastellone, M. I. Cutrignelli, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, N. Mirabella, G. Piccolo, S. Calabrò, L. Avallone, and F. Infascelli, “Fate of
transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings,” Animal, vol. 4, no. 10,
pp. 1662–1671, 2010.
7. V. Mastellone, R. Tudisco, G. Monastra, M. E. Pero, S. Calabrò, P. Lombardi, M. Grossi, M. I. Cutrignelli, L. Avallone, and F. Infascelli, “Gamma-
Glutamyl Transferase Activity in Kids Born from Goats Fed Genetically Modified Soybean,” Food Nutr. Sci., vol. 2013, no. June, pp. 50–54,
2013.
8. R. Tudisco, S. Calabrò, M. I. Cutrignelli, G. Moniello, M. Grossi, V. Mastellone, P. Lombardi, M. E. Pero, and F. Infascelli, “Genetically modified
soybean in a goat diet: Influence on kid performance,” Small Rumin. Res., vol. 12, pp. 1–8, 2015.

3. Tudisco et al., Animal Science, 2006

4. Animal Science, 2006 – fig2 and fig4
Figure 4. Figure 2.
Deletion

5. Animal Science, 2006 – fig2 source
Fig 2 in Animal Science 2006 was obtained by cropping
lanes 3-13 and the controls from the Thesis image (look for
features outside the bands).
SAMPLES DO NOT MATCH. E.G.: lane 4 in the Thesis is
heart, but in the paper is muscle; lane 6 in the Thesis is
kidney, in the paper is heart.
Mastellone’s PhD Thesis (2006)
Fig 17, contrasted.
There are several deleted regions in this image.

6. Animal Science, 2006 – fig3
Controls appear sliced-in (high contrast version)
Original, fig. 3

7. Fig 4 in Animal Science 2006 appears to be completely
fabricated starting from figure 17 in Mastellone’s thesis.
IF CONFIRMED, PRIMERS DO NOT MATCH.
Animal Science, 2006 – fig4 source

8. R. Tudisco, F. Infascelli, M. I. Cutrignelli, F. Bovera, C.
Morcia, P. Faccioli, and V. Terzi, “Fate of feed plant
DNA monitored in water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis)
and rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus),” Livest. Sci., vol.
105, no. 1–3, pp. 12–18, Dec. 2006

9. Mastellone’s PhD Thesis (2006)
Fig 14, unmodified
Lane 9 spliced in. The same image is used to
produce Thesis images 15 and 16, cropping
and moving the lanes in different positions.
Figure 3 for the paper in question derived
from fig.14 in Mastellone Thesis.
Please note that the same figure resurfaces
again in Tudisco 2007 It.J.Anim.Sci (as
source for fig 1 & 2, with changed species)
and in Tudisco 2010 World Rabbit Science
(fig 2) with changed labels (e.g. kidney
becomes liver)

10. It.J.Anim.Sci, 2007

11. It.J.Anim.Sci, 2007 – Fig. 1 and 2 duplication
Figure 1
Figure 2

12. It.J.Anim.Sci, 2007 – Fig. 1 and 2 origin
Mastellone’s PhD Thesis (2006)
Fig 14 (lane 9 spliced in as previously
discussed)
FIG 1 & 2, left panel: evidence for internal
lane duplications (red).
Controls and some lanes are derived from
vertically stretching the corresponding
lanes in Mastellone Thesis, fig. 14 (red, blue
and green).
Please note that the original figure refers to
Bubalus sp., while the figure in the paper
refers to goat.

13. R. Tudisco, S. Calabrò, F. Bovera, M. I. Cutrignelli, A.
Nizza, V. Piccolo, and F. Infascelli, “Detection of plant
species-specific dna (barleyand soybean) in blood
muscle tissue, organs and gastrointestinal contents
of rabbit,” World Rabbit Sci., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 83–
90, 2010.

14. World Rabbit Sci., 2010
Mastellone’s PhD Thesis (2006)
Fig 14, unmodified
Lane 9 spliced in. The same image is used to
produce Thesis images 15 and 16, cropping
and moving the lanes in different positions.
Figure 2 for the paper in question derived from
fig.14 in Mastellone Thesis but labels change
(e.g. kidney becomes liver). Lanes D, C and F are
fabricated by cloning different portions of lanes
K, S & NTC (see red boxes and arrows). A band
was deleted in lane NTC (yellow arrow)
Please note that the same figure was used also in
Tudisco Livest. Sci. 2006 and in Tudisco
It.J.Anim.Sci, 2007 (as source for fig 1 & 2, with
changed species)

15. OTHER FINDINGS

16. Image sharing portions
Animal 2010, fig.2 right panel Small Rum Res 2015, fig.2 left panel

17. Animal, 2010 – Figure 1 – Small ruminant Res., 2015 -
left panel. Figure 1 - Image reuse
The negative control for the
experiment on the left is
manipulated. There is clear
evidence for a software deletion of
the original signal.
The manipulated image is reused!
Milk and blood Colostrum
deletion

18. Animal 2010 FoodNutrSci 2013
Figure 4.
Figure 3.
Panel a: lanes 1-5, treated; lanes 6-10, controls
Panel b: lanes 1-5, controls; lanes 6-10, treated. Moreover,
please note the change of 2010 lane 6 into a 2013 negative
control
Figure 1.
Panel b: lanes 1-6, treated; lanes 7-12, untreated
Panel d: lanes 1-6, treated; lanes 7-12, untreated
Fig.3 and fig4 may share the red portion if the corresponding panel
are from a single gel. However, fig.3 shows sign of splicing-in for the
red portion. High resolution material is needed to check for this.
Small Rum Res 2015, control reuse
ColostrumMilk and blood
Figure 2.