RETRACTION: Exposure to Environmental Pollutant Bisphenol A Causes Oxidative Damage and Lipid Accumulation in Zebrafish Larvae: Protective Role of WL15 Peptide Derived from Cysteine and Glycine‐Rich Protein 2

RETRACTION: A. Guru and J. Arockiaraj, “Exposure to Environmental Pollutant Bisphenol A Causes Oxidative Damage and Lipid Accumulation in Zebrafish Larvae: Protective Role of WL15 Peptide Derived from Cysteine and Glycine‐Rich Protein 2,” Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology 37, no. 1 (2023): e23223, https://doi.org/10.1002/jbt.23223 . The above article, published online on 15 September 2022, in Wiley Online Library ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor‐in‐Chief, Dr. Hari K. Bhat; and Wiley Periodicals LLC. A third party reported that this article had re‐used several images which had been published in an earlier article by the same authors (Guru et al. 2022 [ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10989-022-10376-3 ]). The re‐used images are as follows: images in Figure 6 in this article were re‐used from Figure 1 in the earlier article and the BPA image in Figure 8a in this article was re‐used from the HFD image in Figure 4a in the earlier article. All images were labelled as having derived from different experiments and treatment from the earlier article. Further investigation by the publisher confirmed these images had been re‐used from the earlier article. The authors responded to an inquiry by the publisher and stated that no images had been re‐used across different studies and that all images included in these publications were independently acquired during distinct experimental procedures. The authors provided copies of all images included in the article but did not supply any other data that could be used to qualify the originality of these experiments. The retraction has been agreed to because the evidence of image duplications across different articles, each of which reports on different experimental conditions, fundamentally compromises the editor's confidence in the conclusions of this article. The authors disagree with the retraction.