This paper is marked retracted in the scholarly record (OpenAlex). Interpret its findings with caution.
Retraction: Disruption of Growth Hormone Receptor Prevents Calorie Restriction from Improving Insulin Action and Longevity

Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsApelin-related biomedical research · Hormonal Regulation and Hypertension · Diet and metabolism studies
Following the publication of this article [1], concerns were raised regarding multiple figures. Specifically,
The corresponding author informed the journal that the first author (MSB) is deceased, and that due to this and because the experiments were performed 15–19 years ago, it was not possible to locate and accurately identify all the primary data for this article. For the uncropped western blot images that were located, the corresponding author acknowledged that labelling of the tissue types and samples presented in these images was missing or inconsistent, and that it was therefore not possible to fully confirm the content of these images. They stated that quantitative data related to the longevity, body weight and blood glucose results in this article remain available.
The uncropped images provided for Figs 2C, 4C, 4F and 4G do not appear to match the published panels based on editorial assessment, and in the absence of complete information about the samples presented in these images, they cannot be considered to support the published results. Therefore, the editors do not consider these images sufficient to resolve the concerns in these figures.
In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the reliability of these data, and in the absence of primary data for the affected figures, the PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.
FPD, JSR, KAAR, RW, MMM, JJK, and AB did not agree with the retraction and stand by the article’s findings. OA, AS, and JP either did not respond directly or could not be reached. MSB is deceased.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
