Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘journal of cell science’ Category

Prominent geneticist David Latchman’s group notches second retraction

with 5 comments

j cell scienceA team of researchers whose work is under investigation by University College London has retracted a second paper.

Three of the 11 authors of the 2005 Journal of Cell Science paper being retracted — David Latchman, Richard Knight, and Anastasis Stephanou — were authors of a Journal of Biological Chemistry paper retracted in January. Stephanou takes the blame for the “errors” which felled the Journal of Cell Science paper, about how a tumor suppressor responds to DNA damage.

Here’s the notice for “STAT-1 facilitates the ATM activated checkpoint pathway following DNA damage:” Read the rest of this entry »

University College London mitochondrial biologist resigns after three retractions for image fraud

with 10 comments

Courtesy Nature Publishing Group

A biologist at University College London (UCL) has resigned his post and taken responsibility for “inappropriate figures manipulations” in three now-retracted papers.

Assegid Garedew, formerly a senior research investigator in Salvador Moncada‘s group, stepped down earlier this summer in the midst of an investigation that should be completed soon, Moncada tells Retraction Watch.

The three retraction notices for papers by Garedew and colleagues are all similar.

From Cell Metabolism: “Mitochondrial Dynamics, Biogenesis, and Function Are Coordinated with the Cell Cycle by APC/CCDH1“, cited once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Read the rest of this entry »

Coming clean: A major figure in cardiology publishes a lengthy conflict of interest correction in JAMA

with 13 comments

Authors’ financial disclosures can be a thorny issue for scientific journals.  There’s often confusion over just what should be listed as a conflict of interest, and when relationships are revealed after papers are published, lack of disclosure sometimes leads to corrections.

For example, the Journal of Cell Science recently published this: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

February 7th, 2012 at 4:00 pm

A mega-correction, but no retraction, in the Journal of Cell Science

with 28 comments

In our 2011 year-end post, we promised to keep

…an eye on what may be an emerging trend: The mega-correction. We’ve seen errata notices that correct so many different errors, it’s hard to believe the paper shouldn’t have been retracted. It’s unclear what this means yet, but watch this space for coverage of more examples.

We’ve found another example in the Journal of Cell Science, “Immunobiology of naïve and genetically modified HLA-class-I-knockdown human embryonic stem cells,” originally published in September 2011. The correction begins with what turns out to be a bit of an understatement: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

January 12th, 2012 at 9:30 am

Authors retract Journal of Cell Science study after realizing they were using the wrong gene constructs

with 17 comments

What do you do when it turns out the materials you used in your successful experiment weren’t actually the materials you thought they were?

If you’re Peter Zammit, of King’s College London, and colleagues, you retract a 2008 paper in the Journal of Cell Science. Here’s the notice, for “B-catenin promotes self-renewal of skeletal-muscle satellite cells:” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

January 6th, 2012 at 9:30 am

Third retraction from dismissed Montreal cardiology researcher Zhiguo Wang appears

with 11 comments

Ten days ago, we reported on the dismissal of Zhiguo Wang, a Montreal Heart Institute researcher who had already retracted two papers because of image manipulation. At the time, an official said the institute had requested three more retractions, but when we asked which three papers, we were told:

As written in the press release, the MHI has requested the retraction of three additional scientific articles. We will not be able to confirm the name of the scientific articles and/or publications until confirmation of the retractions.

The first of those three has now appeared, in the Journal of Cell Science, for the 2007 paper, “The muscle-specific microRNAs miR-1 and miR-133 produce opposing effects on apoptosis by targeting HSP60, HSP70 and caspase-9 in cardiomyocytes.” According to the retraction notice — which is unfortunately behind a paywall (see update at end): Read the rest of this entry »