Although majority of the data are reproducible and conclusions do not change, as they are supported by several experiments, the corresponding author has decided to retract this article in its entirety due to reuse of Figure 5a from other publication by the first author.
We’re not sure what prompted the retraction (and have asked the corresponding author), but we do know that the pseudonymous Clare Francis contacted the journal on July 5 of last year with a number of concerns, including some about Figure 5a. Similar comments have been left on PubPeer.
The paper has been cited 18 times, according to Thomson Scientific. The most recent citation was by the authors of the now-retracted paper, in a review published a few weeks after the retraction. While the review was no doubt in press before the retraction occurred, it’s hard to imagine it was done and dusted before the decision to retract.
The work was supported by the NIH.