– Figure 3A’s x-axis shows “BTZ (ng/mL)” but text reports BTZ IC₅₀ values in “nM” (8.93 nM and 4.89 nM). The conversion factor (1 ng/mL BTZ ≈ 1.31 nM) makes the reported 4.89 ng/mL correspond to ~6.4 nM, not 4.89 nM—a >25% discrepancy.
– CI values in Figure 3C appear to range from ~0.6-0.8 (not <0.5 as stated in abstract). The authors claim “CI < 0.5” but the plotted data do not support this strong synergy. The isobologram (Figure 3D) also appears to show points near or on the additive line, not strongly below it.
– Figure 4 shows GRP78 decreased at all Cypripedin concentrations, but p-PERK shows minimal change. This contradicts the expected UPR response—if GRP78 is depleted, PERK should be activated. The authors claim “modest change” but the blots appear to show no change, which is mechanistically problematic.