Authors of a study on cardiac repair after heart attack are retracting it from Basic Research in Cardiology because they used “the same samples… to represent two distinct groups on two occasions.”
We find the language of the retraction somewhat confusing, but to the best of our understanding it means that they compared apples to the exact same apples.
The article ‘‘Postconditioning promotes the cardiac repair through balancing collagen degradation and synthesis after myocardial infarction in rats’’, Basic Res Cardiol (2013) 108:318, was retracted by the authors who regret to have used different fields of the same samples for MMP staining and western blot assay to represent two distinct groups on two occasions in Figs. 4 and 5. Some of the raw data for the earlier experiments with the use of echocardiography for Figs. 8 and 9a were not available for further analysis to exclude that also the same samples were used for two distinct groups. The authors regret the effect of this action on the work of other investigators.
The paper’s corresponding author, Zhi-Qing Zhao of Mercer University School of Medicine in Savannah, Georgia, was also an author on a different paper retracted earlier this year, as we reported in March. (Oddly, that article is not marked as retracted, either in the journal or in PubMed.)
The study currently being retracted has been cited 18 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
We’ve contacted Zhao and the editor of the journal for comment and will update this post if they reply.
Hat tip: Rolf Degen
Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.