Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘cell biology’ Category

Second retraction appears for arcade game-like image manipulation

with 3 comments

In June, we reported on a retraction in Current Biology that came after a number of PubPeer commenters suggested that the authors had engaged in figure manipulation, memorably comparing watching the published videos to playing the old-school arcade game “Space Invaders.”

Now a second paper from the same team has been retracted from Biology Open after the authors “were unable to repeat the results.” The journal was unable to get in touch with first author Livana Soetedio, whom the University of Illinois at Chicago found had fabricated the data and images in both publications.

Here’s the notice for “Targeting of vasoactive intestinal peptide receptor 2, VPAC2, a secretin family G-protein coupled receptor, to primary cilia”: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

November 19th, 2014 at 11:30 am

Retraction appears for faked study of Novartis anti-cancer compound

with 6 comments

Raymond Sawaya, director of MD Anderson’s brain tumor program, presents Jun Fu with the 2014 Caroline Ross Endowment Fellowship.

Raymond Sawaya, director of MD Anderson’s brain tumor program, presents Jun Fu with the 2014 Caroline Ross Endowment Fellowship.

A paper by a former postdoc at MD Anderson Cancer Center who “admitted to knowingly and intentionally falsifying” a figure has been retracted.

In August, the Office of Research Integrity announced that it had sanctioned Jun Fu for faking data in a study of the results of a mouse study of NVP-HSP990, a Novartis compound designed to fight brain tumors. Here’s the notice for the study in question, published in Cancer Research:
Read the rest of this entry »

“I kind of like that about science:” Harvard diabetes breakthrough muddied by two new papers

with 21 comments

douglas_melton

Doug Melton

Harvard stem cell researcher Doug Melton got a lot of press last year for research on a hormone he named betatrophin, after its supposed ability to increase production of beta cells, which regulate insulin.

Now, the conclusions from that paper, which has been cited 59 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, have been called into question by research from an independent group, as well as follow-up work from the original team.

The interest was driven by the hormone’s potential as a new treatment for diabetes. In 2013, Melton told the Harvard Gazette that betatrophin could be in clinical trials within three to five years. Here’s Kerry Grens in The Scientist: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

November 10th, 2014 at 9:30 am

Kidney journal to retract stem cell paper for duplicated and doctored images

with 2 comments

kidney intKidney International is in the process of retracting a stem cell paper containing plagiarized images, Retraction Watch has learned.

Here’s the notice that will appear for “Human renal stem/progenitor cells repair tubular epithelial cell injury through TLR2-driven inhibin-A and microvesicle-shuttled decorin“: Read the rest of this entry »

Shigeaki Kato up to 28 retractions, with three papers cited nearly 700 times

with 28 comments

Shigeaki Kato

Shigeaki Kato

Former University of Tokyo researcher Shigeaki Kato has notched his 26th, 27th, and 28th retractions, all in Nature Cell Biology. The three papers have been cited a total of 677 times.

Here’s the notice for “DEAD-box RNA helicase subunits of the Drosha complex are required for processing of rRNA and a subset of microRNAs:” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

November 3rd, 2014 at 11:30 am

Post-doc fired after explaining image problems in paper to Retraction Watch

with 12 comments

Christian Ramos

Christian Ramos

We reported last week on a Portuguese group that lost two papers over mislabeled image files.

Now, we’ve learned that first author Christian Ramos has been fired after speaking to Retraction Watch and offering what seemed like a heartfelt apology (which you can read here). Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

November 3rd, 2014 at 9:30 am

Former NIH lab director faked findings in three papers: ORI

with 11 comments

ori logoThe former director  of the X-ray crystallography lab at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, faked findings in three papers, according to the Office of Research Integrity.

Two of the three papers by Bijan Ahvazi were published in 2004, and later retracted in 2007, while the other was rejected: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 31st, 2014 at 8:00 am

Will journal finally retract fraudulent paper 10 months after an official request?

with one comment

ChemosphereElsevier journal Chemosphere may finally retract a paper it learned contained fabricated data in January when a member of the author’s institution requested the paper be retracted.

The paper has been cited at least once since the lies came to light, as we reported earlier this month.

The journal contacted the relevant parties on October 29 with the following email about “Degradation of 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) by metabolic cooperative activity of Pseudomonas sp. strain FK357andRhodococcus imtechensis strain RKJ300,” although no notice has been posted: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 30th, 2014 at 11:30 am

Structure error sinks NIH-MIT-SNU peptide paper

without comments

CHBIOL_21_9.c1.inddA mistake in structure identification has sunk a paper by researchers at the NIH, MIT, and Seoul National University in the Cell Press journal Chemistry and Biology.

Here’s the notice for “Peptide-Based Inhibitors of Plk1 Polo-box Domain Containing Mono-anionic Phosphothreonine Esters and Their Pivaloyloxymethyl Prodrugs”: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 29th, 2014 at 11:30 am

Authors retract PNAS paper questioned on PubPeer after original films can’t be found

with 29 comments

pnas31912PubPeer leads the way again: The authors of a paper about Parkinson’s disease in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) have retracted it, several months after a commenter highlighted the exact issue that led to the article’s demise.

The paper, originally published in September 2013, was called into question by a commenter on PubPeer in July 2014, who identified two of the paper’s figures as duplications: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 23rd, 2014 at 10:30 am