Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

U Wisconsin neuroscientist who faked images has first paper retracted

with 7 comments

jbc315Rao Adibhatla, a University of Wisconsin scientist who was found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have faked data in two papers, has had one of those studies retracted.

Here’s the notice for “CDP-choline significantly restores phosphatidylcholine levels by differentially affecting phospholipase A2 and CTP: phosphocholine cytidylyltransferase after stroke,” by Adibhatla and a number of colleagues in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC):

This article has been retracted by the publisher.

An investigation by the Office of Research Integrity determined that falsified Western blots were included in Figs. 1B and 2A, and falsified quantification of Western blots was included in Figs. 1B, 2A, and 3A (https://federalregister.gov/a/2013–01454).

The paper has been cited 65 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. According to the ORI’s repot, Adibhatla also agree to retract a paper in Brain Research.

We’re of course happy to see the reason for the retraction in the JBC, as we’ve noted.

Comments
  • Mr. chromatin March 19, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    JBC should retract the following two papers. May be it is waiting for a correction, just like the recent correction in PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/10/4147.extract.html). ORI knows it all.

    Sankaran et al., February 17, 2012, Vol.287, No.8,

    Marzook et al., February 17, 2012 Vol 287, No.8,

    Fig no. 7C from Marzook matches with Fig. no. 8b and 8d of Sankaran.

    Fig no. 7A from Marzook matches with Fig. no. 8c of Sankaran.

    • michaelhbriggs March 20, 2013 at 1:24 am

      JBC has already published a correction to Marzook et al., February 17, 2012 Vol 287, (2012) 5615–5626, see doi: 10.1074/jbc.A111.314088 April 6, 2012 The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 287, 12158.

      In the correction they say “the authors have inadvertently used MTA1-siRNA and control β- actin panels from other project while reprobing the same membrane for RNF144A antibody used in panel C. This change does not alter the conclusion as well as the quantification of the RNF144 protein of this study.”

      But note: this correction was to figure 3, so we still have to wait for a correction to Figs no. 7A and 7C.

      • Mr. chromatin March 20, 2013 at 1:58 pm

        Check it out.
        Fig.3C, bottom panel shows expression of vinculin.
        Now read the correction carefully, first line, ……………………..and control β- actin …………..
        So in the actual study what was used vinculin or β- actin.
        Authors even don’t know what was used..

        • Junk Science March 21, 2013 at 4:36 pm

          Hi Mr. Chromatin, are you sure ORI has been contacted?

          • Mr. chromatin March 23, 2013 at 2:38 pm

            Yes ORI knows about it.

        • Ms UKSTRUCTURES April 1, 2013 at 6:02 pm

          Thank you Mr. Chromatin. I am in touch with ORI. Let us wait for the outcome.

  • littlegreyrabbit March 20, 2013 at 8:17 am

    Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Mar 1;15(5):1593-600. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2439. Epub 2009 Feb 17.
    Suppression of tumor growth in vivo by the mitocan alpha-tocopheryl succinate requires respiratory complex II.

    The GAPDH row of bands in Panel A has to have been cut and pasted in – yes? And done particularly crudely I might add, not even the lanes line up. They are just loading controls I suppose – but its a very bad look.
    http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/15/5/1593/F1.large.jpg

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.