Ohio State just released a 75-page report finding misconduct by a cancer researcher. What can we learn?

C. K. Gunsalus

Today, the Ohio State University (OSU) announced that Ching-Shih Chen, who resigned from a professorship there in September, was guilty of “deviating from the accepted practices of image handling and figure generation and intentionally falsifying data” in 14 images from eight papers. Chen had earned more than $8 million in Federal grants, and his work had led to a compound now being testing in clinical trials for cancer. (For details of the case, see our story in Science.)

Ching-Shih Chen

OSU — which has been involved in several high-profile cases of misconduct recently — released a lightly-redacted version of their investigation report, and we asked C.K. Gunsalus, who has decades of experience reviewing similar cases, to examine it for us. A Q&A follows.

 

Retraction Watch (RW): What’s your impression of the case? How does it compare in significance with others you’ve looked at?

C.K. Gunsalus (CKG): This research is clinical, and was covered by an investigational new drug application (IND). Any time you have translational research that has been or is in the process of human use, the significance is high.

RW: OSU is releasing their investigation report. In our experience with universities, that’s rare, even when we file public records requests. Would you agree?

CKG: Yes, it is rarer than it should be, and is to be commended.

RW: We — meaning you and two of our co-founders — and a number of others recently developed a checklist, published in JAMA, to allow for peer review of reports like this. How does the report perform on that checklist?

CKG: Some strengths come through clearly and unaddressed questions surface. The virtue of a checklist is that it can quickly highlight important issues about the investigation and the institutional response. Applying the checklist developed by a convened group of experts in this area and applying it to this report raises some questions. The university may well have strong answers for all of them. They are not answered in the report that was released.

RW: What did OSU do well?

CKG: They received an anonymous allegation, assessed it for its factual basis–not always done–and responded by applying their procedures, sequestering data promptly, appointing first an inquiry, and then an investigative committee. They released the final investigation report. The report contains a good deal of detailed information about specific papers and figures. The report clearly states findings and how they relate to conclusions, and in at least in one instance, the committee expanded their work based on the evidence they were examining. They make recommendations that seem to respond to the seriousness of the findings. 

Overall, this is a very tightly focused, internal investigation that examined some itemized issues in detail and with apparent care and rigor for those issues.  As indicated above, a procedural review of the report raises questions that may well have been addressed in other contexts; there just is not information in this document one way or the other to answer those questions, some of which involve serious matters.

RW: What unanswered questions do you have about this case, based on the report?

CKG: There are a number of places where the released documents are less clear than might be ideal, leading to the following questions, among others:

While making it clear the investigation was conducted under institutional policies–the report at one point differentiates between institutional and federal standards and definitions–there is no information about the larger institutional implications of the findings, and little information about the clinical implications. There is no discussion of the relation of those papers to other lines of work in the lab, no timeline showing whether the misconduct started full blown on a particular date or is restricted to the line of work examined. It is not clear why the papers examined were selected, or how, though the committee did expand its scope of work after examining some of the initial evidence.

The issue over which I paused the longest is triggered by a sentence on page 3 describing the data sequestration process: “In some cases, Dr. Chen indicated that there were no laboratory notebooks kept by members of the lab, rather individuals only had weekly progress reports and no daily records of the experiments they conducted.”  If that is the case, how is it that only his work was examined? How were all of his collaborators cleared of any involvement in the misconduct? What is the institution doing about the training provided (or not) to students and trainees in his lab over the years? How do the funders know that the work they supported was conducted, or how it was done?

The report does not include the charge nor the scope of the work the committee was to review. There is no way from what is in the report to determine if all pertinent evidence was available or examined, nor how the work that was examined was selected. How did the staff and committee determine which work to review? Did they set a chronological limit and not go any further back? Did they focus only on the items reported by the anonymous allegation? The report does not say. Again, there may be compelling and sufficient answers; they are just not in the report I reviewed.

While the investigative committee included a member from outside the home unit of the respondent, it did not contain any member from outside the university. There is no discussion in the report covering the professional expertise of the committee members nor statements about reviewing their work for potential conflicts of interest. Thus it is not possible, from the report, to assess whether the committee had appropriate expertise for its task, or any conflicts of interest. Please note that I am not questioning the expertise of the members; the report would be stronger if it were recited, along with its relevance to the work to be examined.

It appears that only the the respondent was interviewed, and that was only by staff, not by the investigative committee. This seems unusual to me, and raises a number of questions.

Finally, reconstructing the timeline of the investigation from the report–one is not included–opens some additional questions. The time from beginning of the process to the end is not especially startling; that without explanation, the report carries a January 2018 revision date, when it was issued in September 2017, is unusual. If the revision was to redact for reasons of student (or other) privacy, it would have been useful if that had been clearly noted.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

25 thoughts on “Ohio State just released a 75-page report finding misconduct by a cancer researcher. What can we learn?”

  1. Chen had earned more than $8 million in Federal grants

    “Chen had been awarded [etc.]” might be a better phrasing.

  2. “In some cases, Dr. Chen indicated that there were no laboratory notebooks kept by members of the lab, rather individuals only had weekly progress reports and no daily records of the experiments they conducted.” <—- I have to say… it is quite interesting that no lab books kept by members…

      1. Unfortunately, notebook recordkeeping best practices doesn’t get a lot of coverage in universities and individuals’ attention to it can vary greatly. If grant oversight folks or even PIs were to routinely spot-check their students’ notebooks while the students are working there instead of letting students further down the line try to reconstruct experiments for repetition, it would probably be a change for the better.

        My quick glance through the retraction report is that most of the issues are concerning image manipulation and that several of the cases had both before-and-after versions of images on the Chen laptop. Several times it’s suggested that the original image could be provided for a correction resulting in the same conclusions for the paper. It makes me wonder if these image manipulations were more based in creating the ideal blot for publication (made easier by close-cropping bands) than leading to incorrect conclusions. In some cases, it sounds like concentrations were shifted by 2x between versions of blots.

  3. When NIH issued a grant, it is an agreement between NIH and OSU to conduct said research with Dr Chen as the principal investigator. OSU charges overhead (could be 40% or higher) on the fund, so it has the obligation to ensure the work is done properly. In this case, OSU did admit it was not done properly. The fund should be returned to NIH at least. Sine NIH is federal agency, and a deliberate act might have been committed to defraud the government, shouldn’t FBI be on the case on day one? This stinks!

    Think about this, you contracted company OSU to build a house and a worker installed low quality windows instead of the better ones you selected (and the worker pocketed the difference in price). It was discovered, and company OSU just fired the worker. No reinstalling the correct windows, no reimburement to you, and no charge against the worker?

    No wonder all my windows are leaking!

  4. Retraction Watch friends, why include a tiny picture of the cheating professor, yet a prominently large head shot of the research ethics expert C.K. Gunsalus? My first impression seeing this on Twitter was that SHE was the one engaged in this misconduct.

    Images matter!

    1. Thanks for the question. Image choices certainly do matter. We should point out that the criticism has sometimes gone the other way, by readers who say using images of those found guilty of misconduct might shame them. In this case, we opted to use both, and to highlight Professor Gunsalus because she is the one doing the expert Q&A. The reason the photo of Professor Chen is smaller is that we could only find small photos of him available for use. The Twitter algorithm chooses the larger picture automatically.

  5. J Biol Chem. 2003 Jul 11;278(28):25872-8. Epub 2003 May 8.
    Bcl-xL mediates a survival mechanism independent of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt pathway in prostate cancer cells.
    Yang CC1, Lin HP, Chen CS, Yang YT, Tseng PH, Rangnekar VM, Chen CS.
    Author information

    1
    Division of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacognosy, College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.

    See: https://pubpeer.com/publications/39BB09A77F643520A935FEEF3F980A

  6. Chen issued a public apology saying that he was responsible for not providing full oversight of his staff’s wrong doing. By saying this way, he keeps lying to the public implying he was not the one who falsified data, contradicting to OSU’s final report, in which the facts were his students/postdocs sent him files accurately reflecting raw data while manipulated images were found on his own laptop/external HD.

  7. Check these patents issued, Have these medications and patents been rescinded?

    Glucose transporter inhibitors
    Patent number: 9174951
    Abstract: Thiazolidinedione compounds and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof are described. The compounds can be used in methods of treating cancer in a subject by administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of the compound. The compounds can also be used in methods of inhibiting glucose uptake in a cell by contacting the cell with the compound.
    Type: Grant
    Filed: March 28, 2013
    Date of Patent: November 3, 2015
    Assignee: OHIO STATE INNOVATION FOUNDATION
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Dasheng Wang, Samuel K. Kulp
    ~

    Anticancer P21-activated kinase inhibitors
    Patent number: 9156790
    Abstract: Compounds according to formula I: wherein Ar is a fused aryl group, R1 is selected from alkyl and aryl amides, CF3, and CH2OH, and R2 is selected from hydrogen, —C(?O)CH2NH2, and —C(?O)CH2CH2NH2 are described. The compounds are effective for inhibiting p21-activated kinases, and can be used for prevention and treatment of cancer.
    Type: Grant
    Filed: March 31, 2014
    Date of Patent: October 13, 2015
    Assignee: Ohio State Innovation Foundation
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Matthew David Ringel, Motoyashi Saji, Yihui Ma
    ~

    Zn-chelating motif-tethered short-chain fatty acids as a novel class of histone deacetylase inhibitors
    Patent number: 9115090
    Abstract: Zn2+-chelating motif-tethered fatty acids as histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors. Compounds performed well in in vitro and in vivo tests.
    Type: Grant
    Filed: December 1, 2004
    Date of Patent: August 25, 2015
    Assignee: THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION
    Inventor: Ching-Shih Chen
    ~

    Anti-staphylococcal celecoxib derivatives
    Patent number: 9079899
    Abstract: A method of treating infection by Staphylococcus in a subject by administering a pharmaceutical composition including a celecoxib derivative of formula I or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof is described. The preparation of numerous celecoxib derivatives for testing as potential anti-staphylococcal agents is also described.
    Type: Grant
    Filed: October 31, 2011
    Date of Patent: July 14, 2015
    Assignee: THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Hao-Chieh Chiu, Dasheng Wang, Samuel K. Kulp
    ~

    METHODS FOR SUPPRESSING CANCER-RELATED CACHEXIA
    Publication number: 20150150832
    Abstract: Methods of suppressing cachexia in a mammal with cancer comprising administering HDAC inhibitors are provided. Aspects include methods of administering an HDAC class 1 and 2b inhibitor in an amount effective to substantially maintain the mammal’s weight compared to a mammal that does receive the HDAC class 1 and 2b inhibitor.
    Type: Application
    Filed: November 19, 2014
    Publication date: June 4, 2015
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Denis Guttridge, Guido Marcucci, Samuel Kulp, Yu-Chou Tseng
    ~

    GLUCOSE TRANSPORTER INHIBITORS
    Publication number: 20150051255
    Abstract: Thiazolidinedione compounds and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof are described. The compounds can be used in methods of treating cancer in a subject by administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of the compound. The compounds can also be used in methods of inhibiting glucose uptake in a cell by contacting the cell with the compound.
    Type: Application
    Filed: March 28, 2013
    Publication date: February 19, 2015
    Applicant: The Ohio State University Research Foundation
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Dasheng Wang, Samuel K. Kulp
    ~

    INDOLYL OR INDOLINYL HYDROXAMATE COMPOUNDS
    Publication number: 20140364477
    Abstract: Indolyl or indolinyl compounds of formula (I): wherein bond, n, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6, are defined herein. Also disclosed is a method for treating cancer with these compounds.
    Type: Application
    Filed: August 26, 2014
    Publication date: December 11, 2014
    Applicants: Ohio State University, National Taiwan University
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Jing-Ping Liou, Hsing-Jin Liu, Kuo-Sheng Hung, Pei-Wen Shan, Wen-Ta Chiu, Che-Ming Teng
    ~

    ANTICANCER P21-ACTIVATED KINASE INHIBITORS
    Publication number: 20140323538
    Abstract: Compounds according to formula I: wherein Ar is a fused aryl group, R1 is selected from alkyl and aryl amides, CF3, and CH2OH, and R2 is selected from hydrogen, —C(?O)CH2NH2, and —C(?O)CH2CH2NH2 are described. The compounds are effective for inhibiting p21-activated kinases, and can be used for prevention and treatment of cancer.
    Type: Application
    Filed: March 31, 2014
    Publication date: October 30, 2014
    Applicant: Ohio State Innovation Foundation
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Matthew David Ringel, Motoyashi Saji, Yihui Ma
    ~

    Indolyl or indolinyl hydroxamate compounds
    Patent number: 8846748
    Abstract: Indolyl or indolinyl compounds of formula (I): wherein bond, n, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6, are defined herein. Also disclosed is a method for treating cancer with these compounds.
    Type: Grant
    Filed: March 29, 2011
    Date of Patent: September 30, 2014
    Assignees: Taipei Medical University, Ohio State University, National Taiwan University
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Jing-Ping Liou, Hsing-Jin Liu, Kuo-Sheng Hung, Pei-Wen Shan, Wen-Ta Chiu, Che-Ming Teng
    ~

    Anti-infective agents against intracellular pathogens
    Patent number: 8741944
    Abstract: A new class of phosphoinositide-dependent kinase-1 (PDK-1) inhibitors of Formula I: wherein X wherein X is —CF3, Ar is selected from and R is selected from where R? is L-Lys, D-Lys, ?-Ala, L-Lue, L-Ile, Phe, SO2CH2CH2NH2, SO2NH2, Asn, Glu or Gyl, and R? is methyl, ethyl, allyl, CH2CH2OH, CH2CN, CH2CH2CN, CH2CONH2,
    Type: Grant
    Filed: April 24, 2013
    Date of Patent: June 3, 2014
    Assignee: The Ohio State University Research Foundation
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Hao-Chieh Chiu, Dasheng Wang
    ~

    Alkyl indole-3-carbinol-derived antitumor agents
    Patent number: 8680133
    Abstract: Compounds and methods for treating cancer or inducing apoptosis in proliferating cells. The compounds are shown in formula I: wherein X is selected from hydroxyl, thiol, and amino; Y is selected from carboxyl and sulfonyl; R1, R2, R3, and R4 are selected from hydrogen, lower alkyl, and combinations thereof; R5, R6, and R7 are selected from hydrogen, halo, ni tro, amino, methoxy, and combinations thereof; and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof.
    Type: Grant
    Filed: March 26, 2012
    Date of Patent: March 25, 2014
    Assignee: The Ohio State University Research Foundation
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Jing-Ru Weng
    ~

    Integrin-linked kinase inhibitors
    Patent number: 8658647
    Abstract: A number of compounds and use of the compounds in a method for treating or preventing cancer in a subject by administering to the subject a pharmaceutical composition including a compound of formula I or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof are described. The compounds can also be used to inhibit integrin-linked kinase in a cell, which has an effect on the Akt signaling pathway.
    Type: Grant
    Filed: November 21, 2011
    Date of Patent: February 25, 2014
    Assignee: The Ohio State University Research Foundation
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Su-Lin Lee, Samuel K. Kulp
    ~

    AKT INACTIVATION BY TOCOPHERYL DERIVATIVES
    Publication number: 20140031388
    Abstract: Anticancer compounds according to formula I are described herein. wherein R1, R2, R3 and R4 are selected from H, CH3, OH, SH, OCH3, NHR?, halogen, CF3, N-linked pyrrolidine, and SO2NHR?, or any combination thereof; R5 is an alkyl, alkenyl, or alkaryl group including from 4 to 11 carbons, X is selected from CH2, CHOH, C?O, S?O, O?S?O, and an oxetane ring, Y is selected from CH2, O, and NH, and R? is a H, aryl, or a lower alkyl group, or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof. The compounds have been shown to facilitate site-specific dephosphorylation of Akt at Ser-473, thereby inactivating Akt and decreasing dysregulation of Akt signaling that can occur in cancer cells.
    Type: Application
    Filed: July 26, 2013
    Publication date: January 30, 2014
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Dasheng Wang, Samuel K. Kulp
    ~

    Therapeutic agents for the treatment of leukemia
    Patent number: 8633161
    Abstract: The invention provides for methods of treating a mammal who has a BCR/ABL-mediated leukemia, including chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), particularly the blast crisis stage of CML, Philadelphia-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph?-ALL), and refractory leukemias. The invention also provides for compounds for the treatment of these leukemias and methods of identifying anti-leukemic agents.
    Type: Grant
    Filed: March 24, 2006
    Date of Patent: January 21, 2014
    Assignee: The Ohio State University Research Foundation
    Inventors: Danilo Perrotti, Paolo Neviani, Ramasamy Santhanam, John C. Byrd, Guido Marcucci, Natarajan Muthusamy, Ching-Shih Chen
    ~

    Anti-agents
    Patent number: 8580827
    Abstract: A series of celecoxib derivatives defined by Formula I: were prepared and evaluated for their ability to inhibit the gram-negative bacteria Francisella tularensis. Pharmaceutical compositions including celecoxib derivatives and their use in methods for treating or preventing infection by Francisella tularensis in a subject are described.
    Type: Grant
    Filed: September 12, 2012
    Date of Patent: November 12, 2013
    Assignee: The Ohio State University Research Foundation
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Hao-Chieh Chiu, Samuel Kulp, John S. Gunn, Larry S. Schlesinger
    ~

    ANTI-STAPHYLOCOCCAL CELECOXIB DERIVATIVES
    Publication number: 20130289004
    Abstract: A method of treating infection by Staphylococcus in a subject by administering a pharmaceutical composition including a celecoxib derivative of formula I or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof is described. The preparation of numerous celecoxib derivatives for testing as potential anti-staphylococcal agents is also described.
    Type: Application
    Filed: October 31, 2011
    Publication date: October 31, 2013
    Applicant: The Ohio State University Research Foundation
    Inventors: Ching-Shih Chen, Hao-Chieh Chiu, Dasheng Wang, Samuel K. Kulp
    ~
    The above were on page one of a multi-page link found here:
    https://patents.justia.com/inventor/ching-shih-chen

  8. Mol Pharmacol. 2005 Apr;67(4):1342-8. Epub 2005 Jan 13.
    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma-independent ablation of cyclin D1 by thiazolidinediones and their derivatives in breast cancer cells.
    Huang JW1, Shiau CW, Yang YT, Kulp SK, Chen KF, Brueggemeier RW, Shapiro CL, Chen CS.
    Author information

    1
    College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, 336 L. M. Parks Hall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

    Figures 1B and 2B. https://imgur.com/OhA38wI

    Figure 3A. Much more similar than you would expect.
    https://imgur.com/CCu1BZq

  9. Neoplasia. 2009 Jun;11(6):552-63, 3 p following 563.
    A rationally designed histone deacetylase inhibitor with distinct antitumor activity against ovarian cancer.
    Yang YT1, Balch C, Kulp SK, Mand MR, Nephew KP, Chen CS.
    Author information

    1
    Division of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacognosy, College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

    Figure 2A. https://imgur.com/JlPSWgn

    Figure 3C. https://imgur.com/d9Wybd1

  10. Mol Pharmacol. 2009 Nov;76(5):957-68. doi: 10.1124/mol.109.058180. Epub 2009 Aug 25.
    Targeting of the Akt-nuclear factor-kappa B signaling network by [1-(4-chloro-3-nitrobenzenesulfonyl)-1H-indol-3-yl]-methanol (OSU-A9), a novel indole-3-carbinol derivative, in a mouse model of hepatocellular carcinoma.
    Omar HA1, Sargeant AM, Weng JR, Wang D, Kulp SK, Patel T, Chen CS.
    Author information

    1
    Division of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

    Figure 5C. https://imgur.com/lt5Y9N5

  11. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 19;8(6):e67149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067149. Print 2013.
    Functional Role of mTORC2 versus Integrin-Linked Kinase in Mediating Ser473-Akt Phosphorylation in PTEN-Negative Prostate and Breast Cancer Cell Lines.
    Lee SL1, Chou CC, Chuang HC, Hsu EC, Chiu PC, Kulp SK, Byrd JC, Chen CS.
    Author information

    1
    Division of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.

    Figure 3A. https://imgur.com/hhTktEp

  12. ChemMedChem. 2015 Nov;10(11):1915-23. doi: 10.1002/cmdc.201500371. Epub 2015 Sep 9.
    Development of Potent Adenosine Monophosphate Activated Protein Kinase (AMPK) Activators.
    Dokla EM1,2, Fang CS1, Lai PT1, Kulp SK1, Serya RA2, Ismail NS2, Abouzid KA3, Chen CS4,5.
    Author information

    1
    Division of Medicinal Chemistry & Pharmacognosy, College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Room 336, Parks Hall, 500 West 12th Ave., Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
    2
    Pharmaceutical Chemistry Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ain Shams University, POB 11566, Abbassia, Cairo, Egypt.
    3
    Pharmaceutical Chemistry Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ain Shams University, POB 11566, Abbassia, Cairo, Egypt. Khaled.abouzid@pharma.asu.edu.eg.
    4
    Division of Medicinal Chemistry & Pharmacognosy, College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Room 336, Parks Hall, 500 West 12th Ave., Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. chen.844@osu.edu.
    5
    Institute of Biological Chemistry, Academia Sinica, 128 Academia Road Sec. 2, Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan. chen.844@osu.edu.

    Figure 5B. https://imgur.com/jXfV7ku

    1. ChemMedChem. 2015 Nov;10(11):1915-23 2018 retraction notice.
      https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00707
      “The Editors retract this article (10.1021/jm901773d) at the request of The Ohio State University. An institutional investigation determined that the images in Figures 4A and 6C were intentionally falsified by author Ching-Shih Chen.
      The original article was published on February 19, 2010 and retracted on May 18, 2018.”

  13. Those ” other research experts in the colleges of pharmacy and medicine” were not awarded the grants.

  14. 2018 Retraction of “Development of a Novel Class of Glucose Transporter Inhibitors”.
    Wang D, Chu PC, Yang CN, Yan R, Chuang YC, Kulp SK, Chen CS.
    J Med Chem. 2018 May 18. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00708. [Epub ahead of print] No abstract available.
    PMID: 29772905

    Retraction notice. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00708
    “The Editors retract this article (10.1021/jm300015m) at the request of The Ohio State University. An institutional investigation determined that the image in Figure 4C was intentionally falsified by author Ching-Shih Chen.
    The original article was published on April 2, 2012 and retracted on May 18, 2018.”

  15. How can Ohio State justify keeping research grants awarded to somebody (Ching-Shih Chen), whom Ohio State itself has found guilty of “deviating from the accepted practices of image handling and figure generation and intentionally falsifying data”? Is it not another level of fraud?

  16. 2018 correction.
    Cancer Res. 2014 Sep 1;74(17):4783-95. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0135. Epub 2014 Jul 3.
    AMPK reverses the mesenchymal phenotype of cancer cells by targeting the Akt-MDM2-Foxo3a signaling axis.
    Chou CC1, Lee KH2, Lai IL1, Wang D1, Mo X3, Kulp SK1, Shapiro CL4, Chen CS5.
    Author information

    1
    Division of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
    2
    Division of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Institute for Cancer Biology and Drug Discovery, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    3
    Center for Biostatistics, Wexner Medical Center and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
    4
    Division of Medical Oncology, Wexner Medical Center and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. chen.844@osu.edu Charles.Shapiro@osumc.edu.
    5
    Division of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Institute of Biological Chemistry, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. chen.844@osu.edu Charles.Shapiro@osumc.edu.

    2018 correction.
    http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/78/12/3401

    In the original version of this article (1), there are errors in Figs. 2A and 3B, and in Supplementary Table S1. In Fig. 2A, the images of the ACC blots for the MDA-MB-231 cells and the PC-3 cells are the same, which resulted from the unintentional reuse of the images during figure assembly by the first author. In Fig. 3B, the images of the PCR gels for Snail in MDA-MB-231 cells and E-cadherin in PC-3 cells are very similar. Definitive verification of the published data could not be made by examination of the original data. The authors state that these errors may have resulted from the unintentional reuse of the images during figure assembly by the first author. To confirm the findings presented in these figures, the experiments were repeated by another individual in the laboratory of the corresponding author who was not involved in the conduct of the experiments for the original article. The new results are identical to the published results and lead to the same conclusions reported in the original article. In addition, in the repeated experiment for Fig. 3B, different PCR primers were used for human E-cadherin, human vimentin, human YB-1, human Snail, and human β-actin than those published previously. Thus, Supplementary Table S1 was revised accordingly.
    The errors have now been corrected in the recent online HTML and PDF versions of the article. The authors regret these errors and acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Hsiao-Ching Chuang, who repeated the experiments for Figs. 2A and 3B.
    2018 correction.

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.