Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Cancer biologist stops research as his retraction count rises to 13

with 16 comments

Anil Jaiswal

A cancer biologist based at the University of Maryland is transitioning out of research, as a journal has retracted three more of his papers.

Anil Jaiswal has now lost 13 papers, including, as we reported on February 6, six retractions issued earlier this month.

The Baltimore Sun reported this week that Jaiswal would no longer be conducting research at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, which we confirmed from a spokesperson:

He has been a research-scientist here for the past 9 1/2 years. However, he is now transitioning out of research.

Jaiswal’s latest retractions were issued by the Journal of Cell Science. The notices for all three papers — on which Jaiswal was corresponding author — mention an investigation by the University of Maryland, Baltimore. One notice says the first author does not agree with the retraction; another notice says none of the authors agree with the journal’s decision.

Let’s start with that paper, “Oncogene PKCε controls INrf2–Nrf2 interaction in normal and cancer cells through phosphorylation of INrf2,” which has been cited twice since it was published in 2013, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, formerly part of Thomson Reuters. Here’s more information from the journal about why it decided to retract it:

Journal of Cell Science was alerted by readers to potential image manipulation and reuse in papers published in the journal by Dr Anil K. Jaiswal, the corresponding author. An investigation was conducted by the author’s institution, the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Following their assessment, the University of Maryland, Baltimore, concluded that the above-named publication had been compromised as follows, and requested that it be retracted:

“Figures 1, 2, 3C, 4 and 6E: Excel files appear to show that data from a single subject (3 samples from each) were presented as data from 3 independent subjects (Figures 3C, 6E). At least in one case, a single datum is presented as an average of several data points (Figure 6E). In addition, Figure 1 (panels C to E), 2 (panels A to C) and 4 (panels B & E) all show clear evidence that bands on the depicted gels were digitally spliced so as to remove certain blots. As presented, the figures do not support the claim that data are averages of independent samples.”

The authors do not agree to this retraction.

Next, here’s the notice for “Antioxidant-induced modification of INrf2 cysteine 151 and PKC-δ-mediated phosphorylation of Nrf2 serine 40 are both required for stabilization and nuclear translocation of Nrf2 and increased drug resistance,” cited 102 times since it appeared in 2009:

Journal of Cell Science was alerted by readers to potential image manipulation and reuse in papers published in the journal by Dr Anil K. Jaiswal, the corresponding author. An investigation was conducted by the author’s institution, the University of Maryland, Baltimore, during which they documented alleged irregularities in Figures 3A, 3C, 5A, 7C, 8D and 9B of the paper named above. The investigatory committee recommended that we retract the above paper.

The first author (Suryakant K. Niture) does not agree to this retraction.

Attempts on the part of the journal office to contact Abhinav K. Jain were unsuccessful.

That paper was corrected in 2010 to fix the text and label for figure 9B, flagged by the retraction notice.

Finally, here’s the retraction notice for the third paper, “Antioxidant-induced INrf2 (Keap1) tyrosine 85 phosphorylation controls the nuclear export and degradation of the INrf2–Cul3–Rbx1 complex to allow normal Nrf2 activation and repression:”

Journal of Cell Science was alerted by readers to potential image manipulation and reuse in papers published in the journal by Dr Anil K. Jaiswal, the corresponding author. An investigation was conducted by the author’s institution, the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Following their assessment, the University of Maryland, Baltimore, concluded that the above-named publication had been compromised as follows, and requested that it be retracted:

“Data presented in this manuscript are duplicated and relabeled from data in Tyrosine phosphorylation controls nuclear export of Fyn, allowing Nrf2 activation of cytoprotective gene expression. Kaspar, J. W., Jaiswal, A. K. FASEB J. (2011) 25, 1076–87. Three western blots from Figure 2D in FASEB J. (2011) 25, 1076–87 are duplicated and relabeled as Figure 1C in J. Cell Sci. (2012) 125, 1027-38. Two western blots from FASEB J. (2011) 25, 1076–87, Figure 5D are duplicated and relabeled as Figure 6F in J. Cell Sci. (2012) 125, 1027-38. The figures do not support the analyses or the hypotheses.”

Attempts on the part of the journal office to contact James W. Kaspar were unsuccessful.

The 2012 paper has been cited 20 times.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

Comments
  • Morty February 16, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    Isn’t it fair to ask University of Maryland for some transperency in this case
    as I assume some millions of public money have apparently been wasted on research
    by the Jaiswal lab? Openness in these cases is crucial, not only for the many researchers
    wondering what to trust from the many Jaiswal publications, but also for preventive reasons.

  • fernando pessoa February 16, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    Also, Baylor College of Medicine should pay back grant money.

    3 Retracted articles from Baylor:-

    1. J Biol Chem. 2005 Aug 12;280(32):29158-68. Epub 2005 May 17.
    Nuclear import and export signals in control of Nrf2.
    Jain AK1, Bloom DA, Jaiswal AK.
    Author information
    1Department of Pharmacology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
    Retraction in
    Nuclear import and export signals in control of Nrf2. [J Biol Chem. 2017]
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15901726

    2. J Biol Chem. 2006 Apr 28;281(17):12132-42. Epub 2006 Mar 2.
    Phosphorylation of tyrosine 568 controls nuclear export of Nrf2.
    Jain AK1, Jaiswal AK.
    Author information
    1Department of Pharmacology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
    Retraction in
    Phosphorylation of tyrosine 568 controls nuclear export of Nrf2. [J Biol Chem. 2017]
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16513647

    3. Cancer Res. 2007 Jun 1;67(11):5380-8.
    NRH:quinone oxidoreductase 2 and NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 protect tumor suppressor p53 against 20s proteasomal degradation leading to stabilization and activation of p53.
    Gong X1, Kole L, Iskander K, Jaiswal AK.
    Author information
    1Department of Pharmacology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17545619

  • fernando pessoa February 16, 2017 at 1:08 pm
  • fernando pessoa February 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    Abhinav K. Jain is a recipient of a “Laura and John Arnold Foundation Odyssey Fellowship”
    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/uotm-rpa062609.php

    which has this initiative: http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/initiative/research-integrity/

  • fernando pessoa February 16, 2017 at 2:10 pm
  • Regret February 16, 2017 at 4:57 pm

    “transitioning out of research”? Sounds like he never did any research.

  • phil February 16, 2017 at 7:15 pm

    Fernanado, it looks like there are more manuscript published during Jaiswal’s transition (almost 7) from Baylor College of Medicine to University of Maryland. What matter mostly is not only the loss of resources of NIH and University of Maryland, but misleading/ colonize science/ scientist and their enthusiasm in wrong direction.

  • blatnoi February 16, 2017 at 7:26 pm

    I think you should distinguish between the different University of Maryland campuses more clearly as they are independent universities with differing policies, just like the University of California system. The first sentence should have identified it as University of Maryland, Baltimore, known as UMB. UMCP (College Park) is the flagship university located in Washington DC (or within the beltway).

    • fernandopessoa February 17, 2017 at 3:52 am

      No, it is part of the same system. The head honcho carries the can for all.

  • fernandopessoa February 20, 2017 at 5:14 am

    Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Mar 1;15(5):1534-42. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1783. Epub 2009 Feb 17.
    NRH:quinone oxidoreductase 2-deficient mice are highly susceptible to radiation-induced B-cell lymphomas.
    Iskander K1, Barrios RJ, Jaiswal AK.
    Author information
    1Department of Pharmacology, Baylor College of Medicine, and Department of Pathology, Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.

    Figure 4 Clin Cancer Res 15:1534 and figure 4 Cancer Res 68:7915.
    http://i.imgur.com/Y9vHkN5.jpg

    For reference.
    Cancer Res. 2008 Oct 1;68(19):7915-22. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-0766.
    Disruption of NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 gene in mice leads to radiation-induced myeloproliferative disease.
    Iskander K1, Barrios RJ, Jaiswal AK.
    Author information
    1Department of Pharmacology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.

  • fernandopessoa March 7, 2017 at 4:07 am

    2017 retraction of:
    Oncogene. 2012 Oct 4;31(40):4362-71. doi: 10.1038/onc.2011.600. Epub 2012 Jan 16.
    Stress-induced NQO1 controls stability of C/EBPα against 20S proteasomal degradation to regulate p63 expression with implications in protection against chemical-induced skin cancer.
    Patrick BA1, Jaiswal AK.
    Author information
    1Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.

    2017 retraction notice.
    http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/onc2016476a.html

  • fernandopessoa March 7, 2017 at 4:11 am

    2017 retraction of:
    Oncogene (2011) 30, 1098–1107; doi:10.1038/onc.2010.491; published online 1 November 2010

    Disruption of NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 gene in mice leads to 20S proteasomal degradation of p63 resulting in thinning of epithelium and chemical-induced skin cancer

    B A Patrick1, X Gong2 and A K Jaiswal1

    1Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
    2Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, USA

    2017 retraction notice.
    http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/onc2016475a.html

  • fernandopessoa March 7, 2017 at 5:00 am

    2 corrections for:

    Free Radic Biol Med. 2012 Nov 15;53(10):1886-93. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2012.08.584. Epub 2012 Aug 31.
    NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 protects bladder epithelium against painful bladder syndrome in mice.
    Patrick BA1, Das A, Jaiswal AK.
    Author information
    1Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.

    2013 correction for figure 1.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584913000725

    2014 correction for figure 5D.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584914004377

  • phil March 15, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    More retraction

    Stress-induced NQO1 controls stability of C/EBPα against 20S proteasomal degradation to regulate p63 expression with implications in protection against chemical-induced skin cancer.
    Patrick BA, Jaiswal AK.
    Oncogene. 2017 Mar 6. doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.476. [Epub ahead of print] No abstract available.
    PMID: 28263979

    Disruption of NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 gene in mice leads to 20S proteasomal degradation of p63 resulting in thinning of epithelium and chemical-induced skin cancer.
    Patrick BA, Gong X, Jaiswal AK.
    Oncogene. 2017 Mar 6. doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.475. [Epub ahead of print] No abstract available.
    PMID: 28263975
    Similar articles

  • Michael April 26, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Why in the world cannot the Federal Government assign the FBI to investigate and prosecute such cases? After all, federal funds were wasted, if any data from the retracted articles were used in designing clinical trials, then cancer patients were put in harm’s way. FBI investigates bank fraud. Why not ask them to investigate alleged research fraud? I am sure there will be plenty of honest scientists (that are disgusted with the current status quo) who will be willing to provide expert feedback to the FBI in such an investigation. No university should be allowed to self-police. Those who have been in university settings know how such investigations go.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.