A journal has allowed a group of researchers in Italy to correct a 2016 paper with questionable images after a faculty member in their institution — and a frequent co-author of the group’s — said his investigation found no reason to doubt their integrity.
The article, “Arg tyrosine kinase modulates TGF-β1 production in human renal tubular cells under high-glucose conditions,” appeared in the Journal of Cell Science. Earlier this year, a poster on PubPeer pointed out “problematic similarities” with figures in the article.
The similarities evidently didn’t trouble Fulvio Magni, a professor of biochemistry at Milano-Bicocca who was tasked with investigating the case. Magni, we think we should note, has also been a co-author with members of the research group (see here, here, here and here, for a few examples).
According to the correction:
Journal of Cell Science was made aware of similarities between several bands in western blots in Fig. 5E, Fig. 6A and Fig. 7A. The corresponding author, Roberto Perego, was not able to provide all of the original full blots concerning the published Fig. 5E and Fig. 6A, so the journal referred this matter to the Milano-Bicocca University, Italy. As there is no research integrity officer at the institute, Fulvio Magni, Professor of Biochemistry, was assigned by the Dean of the School of Medicine and Surgery in April 2016 to oversee problems related to research. Professor Magni investigated and released the following statement:
‘I have carefully checked the details of the experiments reported in Fig. 6A. Both films concerning beta-actin and Arg are missing, therefore, I could not individuate a possible explanation and ensure that the beta-actin bands used for Fig. 6A are derived from the same gel used for detecting Arg. However, it seems to me that there is no intentional alteration of the results. As the authors have several replicates, I strongly suggest the authors replace Fig. 6A with one of the other experiments in which they have both original films for beta-actin and Arg proteins. For Fig. 5E, I checked the laboratory notebook and confirm the presence of film concerning pSmad2, but the film concerning total Smad is missing. Also, in this case, I could not find any possible fraudulent explanation justifying an incorrect alignment of the two films. However, I cannot exclude a possible human unintentional mistake. I suggest that the authors replace Fig. 5E with one of the other replicates with a guaranteed alignment. The original data confirm the overall conclusions of the published paper.’
As the designated investigator at the institute found that the conclusions are sound, we are publishing this Correction with replicate blots for Fig. 5E and Fig. 6A that were obtained from the same samples at the same time. The online and PDF versions of the article have been updated and the authors apologise to readers for any inconvenience caused.
If the situation sounds familiar to Retraction Watch readers, they might be recalling this case, about an expression of concern by the Journal of Cell Science over a paper by a group from the Istituto Superiore di Sanità. Back in July, the journal said it was waiting on more information from the institution on the matter after not being able to find a body at the institute that investigated such issues. (It turns out that it did have one.)
Sharon Ahmad, executive editor of the Journal of Cell Science, told Retraction Watch that the journal was alerted to the possible issues in the newly corrected paper through PubPeer in February.
Ahmad also said:
We were not aware that Magni and Perego were co-authors, but were directed to Fulvio Magni as the person who oversees ethics issues for the institute. It is possible that his judgement could have been affected by previous co-authorship, but he was not a co-author on the paper in question.
We were unable to find any mention of a [research integrity officer] RIO at the author’s institute, and so obtained confirmation from Fulvio Magni that there was no such office or committee, which is why he was appointed to that role. I let him know that we would be publishing as many details as possible about our correspondence, including naming him on the correction; he agreed to this course of action.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, 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 [email protected].
I noticed this a couple of weeks ago and commented on PubPeer that having a frequent co-author in charge of an investigation was less than ideal. I understand that journals can be in a tough spot when misconduct is suspected but not proven, but a better resolution would be to have independent peers review the paper again and to publish an EoC if the peers don’t believe the results of an investigation.
I have posted 2 other images from this paper that may have similar integrity issues. https://pubpeer.com/publications/159D21A5FEE9E11C837DEE235CA2F0#6
Perhaps Adam could see if the parties will investigate further.
I flagged a couple of other papers by this group with similar issues:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/7338E21D16FA9AF67322800CEDC0D9#1
https://pubpeer.com/publications/56E01527212F872D660D2C84C63550#1
The first of these is a 2019 paper, so hopefully the authors will have better success finding their records.
The bands in the last two lanes of the second panel of Figure 4F of the Journal of Cell Science article are remarkably similar. Such duplication within a panel is extremely unlikely to occur by accident or “honest error.”
2020 retraction for:
J Cell Sci . 2016 Aug 1;129(15):2925-36.
doi: 10.1242/jcs.183640. Epub 2016 Jun 13.
Arg tyrosine kinase modulates TGF-β1 production in human renal tubular cells under high-glucose conditions
Barbara Torsello 1, Cristina Bianchi 1, Chiara Meregalli 1, Vitalba Di Stefano 1, Lara Invernizzi 1, Sofia De Marco 1, Giorgio Bovo 2, Rinaldo Brivio 3, Guido Strada 4, Silvia Bombelli 1, Roberto A Perego 5
Affiliations collapse
Affiliations
1School of Medicine and Surgery, Milano-Bicocca University, Monza 20900, Italy.
2Anatomo-Pathology Unit, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza 20900, Italy.
3Clinical Pathology Unit, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza 20900, Italy.
4Urology Unit, Bassini ICP Hospital, Milano 20092, Italy.
5School of Medicine and Surgery, Milano-Bicocca University, Monza 20900, Italy [email protected].
PMID: 27298228
2020 retraction. https://jcs.biologists.org/content/133/20/jcs254847
Following the publication of a correction concerning Figs 5E, 6A and 7A, members of the community highlighted that Professor Fulvio Magni, who had been assigned by the Dean of the School Medicine and Surgery to oversee problems related to research in the absence of a research integrity office, and who investigated this case on behalf of the University Milano-Bicocca, had co-authored articles with the corresponding author.
New concerns were also raised regarding a possible splice in Fig. 4B and band duplication in Fig. 4F. Original data provided by the corresponding author, Professor Roberto Perego, before acceptance in 2016 when the paper was first investigated, were at low resolution; higher resolution images of replicate experiments were also provided. Re-inspection of the data for Fig. 4F led to the conclusion that the image was of too poor quality to conclusively match it to the published figure, or to confirm or exclude band duplication. For Fig. 4B, the original data could not rule out any inappropriate manipulation, and the relative alignment of the rows of bands in the original full blot was inconsistent, raising further concerns.
Journal of Cell Science contacted the institute to request another independent investigation of the case, including these two new concerns.
Professor Guido Cavaletti the Vice-Rector (Research) at the University of Milano-Bicocca, nominated a committee of three independent experts working at external institutions to investigate this case. Once the committee completed its investigation, Journal of Cell Science was sent the report, which stated:
‘We have carefully checked the details of the experiments reported in the [paper]. We could not individuate a possible explanation and ensure that the data reported are derived from the same gel used. However, it seems to us that there is no intentional alteration of the results.’
They further stated that as the corresponding author has replicates for the experiments in question, he should supply replacement figures. They also confirmed that the conclusions of the paper were confirmed by the original data.
Unfortunately, the journal found that neither this report, nor the original data or explanation supplied by the corresponding author, adequately addressed our concerns about suspected inappropriate image manipulation. We are therefore retracting this paper.
Nice work by the journal. Rare to see this much effort to investigate.