We have news of two upcoming retractions, both following critiques on PubPeer.
PLOS ONE is retracting a 2012 paper by researchers at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, “Interferon-β Induces Cellular Senescence in Cutaneous Human Papilloma Virus-Transformed Human Keratinocytes by Affecting p53 Transactivating Activity.”
PubPeer commenters first left critiques of the paper on August 6 of last year, noting likely splicing and other manipulation of images. Several days later, pseudonymous whistleblower Claire Francis contacted the journal to flag similar issues. On Wednesday of this week, a journal representative emailed Francis to say the paper would be retracted:
I am sorry we have not provided an update on this case much sooner. We completed our follow-up on this matter, and in light of the concerns you raised and other issues that came to light in our editorial assessment we retracted the above article. In about two weeks, you will be able to view the retraction notice through the article’s webpage or at doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
The paper has been cited 21 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. The corresponding author, Giovanna Romeo, has not responded to a request for comment.
‘This was all very painful….!’
Separately, Karin Schumacher, of Heidelberg University, announced on Twitter Wednesday that she would be retracting a paper she and colleagues published in eLife in February. The move followed comments on PubPeer about potential manipulation of images in the paper, “Pyrophosphate modulates plant stress responses via SUMOylation.”
Schumacher had responded to the comments within days, first sending the original images and then writing:
I finally had the chance to discuss the matter with my colleagues. The blots in Figure 3E have indeed been manipulated in an inappropriate manner and we are very grateful that you brought this to our attention. However, the manipulation does not affect the outcome of the experiment. Our conclusion that SUMOylation is reduced in fugu5 is based on the quantification of independent replicate experiments. In the meantime, we are running another repetition of the experiment to be able to provide a suitable blot for the figure. Beyond that, everybody involved has learned a very painful lesson and we all hope to proof in the future that this was an exceptional break of the rules of good scientific practice and does not at all reflect how we do science!
On Wednesday of this week, Schumacher posted:
Update: We have initiated retraction of eLife 2019;8:e44213 based on irregularities associated with the Western Blots shown in Figures 3D and E as well as Figures 4C and D performed by Gorkem Patir-Nebioglu (GPN). Initiated by reports on PubPeer, we have further investigated the matter and have found that in both Figures 3 and 4 blots were spliced together from different original images without indication and a single lane was copied twice in Figure 3E. In addition, GPN has admitted to have intentionally loaded less protein for fugu5 at 4°C (Figure 3) and 40°C (Figure 4). Both issues represent severe violations of the rules of good scientific practice and retraction of the manuscript is thus mandatory.
We are currently running independent repetitions of the experiments in question and hope to be able to clarify the situation in the near future. In the meantime, our sincere apologies go to all of our collaborators and readers of our manuscript.
Schumacher, who did not respond to a request for comment, earned plaudits on Twitter for the move.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.