Abstract
A critical look at a recently published manuscript reporting the role of CCN3 in the regulation of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) biology raises several scientific concerns, and reveals flaws in the reviewing process which appear to have resulted in the dissemination of conclusions that are not supported by proper experimental procedures. In the example presented here, the observed biological effects are attributed to a high molecular weight "CCN3" protein which is detected by a single commercial antibody that was not shown in the experimental conditions used by the authors to be a valid reagent capable of stringently detecting the "canonical" CCN3 protein. Experiments establishing that inhibiting the production of high molecular weight "CCN3" protein would reverse these biological effects were not performed. The case discussed here clearly demonstrates that unreliable data can go through peer reviewing and be published. As the data can end up being cited and used as a potential reference by new investigators in the field, we believe that such data can throw roadblocks across the scientific path of inquiry and mislead investigations. We therefore raise awareness for the need of a more stringent peer reviewing process in which assurance can be had that the strength and precision of the data have been thoroughly checked by experts in the CCN field, and previous work properly referenced.