Fourth retraction results from Cardiff investigation

mol immResearchers have retracted a fourth paper following an investigation at Cardiff University that found evidence of image manipulation by a researcher named Rossen Donev.

Here’s the notice for “The mouse complement regulator CD59b is significantly expressed only in testis and plays roles in sperm acrosome activation and motility,” a paper first published in Molecular Immunology in 2008:

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).

This article has been retracted at the request the Editor following the release of the conclusions of an internal investigation panel established by Cardiff University to examine allegations of research misconduct in the preparation of the manuscript. The panel found evidence of splicing or pasting affecting Figures 1B, 4A and 5, without indication that this had been done. While these image manipulations cannot be characterized as “fabrication” because there is no reason to doubt the validity of the underlying science in the article, they represent unacceptable practice when submitting a manuscript for publication. The panel concluded that Dr. Donev was solely responsible for these actions and that none of the other co-authors of this manuscript knew, or had reason to suspect, that the data presented in the manuscript had been manipulated by Dr. Donev.

The paper has been cited 18 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Donev, who is no longer at Cardiff, worked with former dean Paul Morgan. Morgan resigned in August but “categorically denied that his decision had anything to do with the misconduct investigation,” according to Times Higher Education. The previous three retractions were of papers in Cancer Research and the Journal of Immunology.

Hat tip: Tim D. Smith

6 thoughts on “Fourth retraction results from Cardiff investigation”

  1. Kudos to Elsevier for retracting the paper because of “evidence of splicing or pasting affecting Figures 1B, 4A and 5, without indication that this had been done.”

    Inspection of the figures reveals that the Photoshop manipulation is very transparent [or clumsy], without any real [or “skillful”] attempt to hide the splicing and pasting. One simply has to look at a bit higher magnification to see the manipulations.

    What I’m questioning is the statement that there’s, “no reason to doubt the validity of the underlying science.”

    If the figures were spliced and pasted [and they were], isn’t that reason in itself to doubt the scientific validity? If the underlying gels etc were so awful that the figures couldn’t be made “acceptable” without splicing and pasting then there HAD to be a problem with the science.

    I think there’s more to the retraction than meets the eye initially.

    1. I agree. I also question this statement:

      ” none of the other co-authors of this manuscript knew, or had reason to suspect, that the data presented in the manuscript had been manipulated by Dr. Donev.”

      The manipulations are so crude that even a cursory glance shows problems. How could the coauthors have been unaware of the manipulations if they looked at the data at all?

      1. The image problems run a bit deeper.

        From an earlier post:

        http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/11/second-retraction-stemming-from-cardiff-investigations-appears/#comment-66480

        Please compare band lane 1 of CD59b panel (testis) figure 4 Mol Immunol. 2008 Jan;45(2):534-42.
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=1995235_gr4.jpg

        with band lane ii figure 1B (EL4 cells) J Immunol. 2004 Sep 15;173(6):3684-92.
        http://www.jimmunol.org/content/173/6/3684/F1.large.jpg

        Please compare the backgrounds in the panels.

        Please note how the dot in lane iii (level with the bottom of the band in lane ii)
        figure 1B J Immunol. 2004 Sep 15;173(6):3684-92
        becomes three dots in lanes 3 and 4 of CD59b panel figure 4 Mol Immunol. 2008 Jan;45(2):534-42.

        For reference:

        J Immunol. 2004 Sep 15;173(6):3684-92.
        CD59a is the primary regulator of membrane attack complex assembly in the mouse.
        Baalasubramanian S, Harris CL, Donev RM, Mizuno M, Omidvar N, Song WC, Morgan BP.
        Source

        Complement Biology Group, Department of Medical Biochemistry and Immunology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

        PMID:15356114

  2. Nucleic Acids Res
    . 2010 May;38(9):2799-812. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq013. Epub 2010 Jan 25.
    Interplay between REST and nucleolin transcription factors: a key mechanism in the overexpression of genes upon increased phosphorylation
    Teeo Tediose 1, Martin Kolev, Baalasubramanian Sivasankar, Paul Brennan, B Paul Morgan, Rossen Donev
    Affiliations collapse
    Affiliation
    1Department of Infection, Immunity and Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK.
    PMID: 20100803 PMCID: PMC2875004 DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkq013

    Figure 3B. Not whole lanes duplicated, but parts of lanes, parts of bands duplicated.

    https://imgur.com/S9zs0yx

  3. 5th retraction. This time for:

    Nucleic Acids Res . 2010 May;38(9):2799-812. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq013. Epub 2010 Jan 25.
    Interplay between REST and nucleolin transcription factors: a key mechanism in the overexpression of genes upon increased phosphorylation
    Teeo Tediose 1, Martin Kolev, Baalasubramanian Sivasankar, Paul Brennan, B Paul Morgan, Rossen Donev
    Affiliations collapse
    Affiliation
    1Department of Infection, Immunity and Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK.
    PMID: 20100803 PMCID: PMC2875004 DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkq013

    17 Nov 2021 retraction notice.
    https://academic.oup.com/nar/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nar/gkab1151/6426056

    Retraction of ‘Interplay between REST and nucleolin transcription factors: a key mechanism in the overexpression of genes upon increased phosphorylation’
    Nucleic Acids Research, gkab1151, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1151
    Published: 17 November 2021

    Following allegations of image manipulation in Figure 3B of the above article (1) a corrigendum was published in 2014 (2). After allegations of image manipulation in Figure 1B were raised in 2021, the Editors of Nucleic Acids Research investigated again and are now retracting the article after having determined Lane 2 has been altered by partly copying Lane 1 and manually adding some bands.

    According to COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/), the Editors are therefore retracting the article from Nucleic Acids Research and have informed the institution.

    1. Tediose T., Kolev M., Sivasankar B., Brennan P., Morgan B.P., Donev R. Interplay between REST and nucleolin transcription factors: a key mechanism in the overexpression of genes upon increased phosphorylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010; 38:2799–2812.

    2. Tediose T., Kolev M., Sivasankar B., Brennan P., Morgan B.P., Donev R. Interplay between REST and nucleolin transcription factors: a key mechanism in the overexpression of genes upon increased phosphorylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42:2798.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.