A Johns Hopkins researcher who shared the 2019 Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology has retracted four papers from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) for concerns about images in the articles.
Gregg Semenza is “one of today’s preeminent researchers on the molecular mechanisms of oxygen regulation,” the work for which he shared the 2019 Nobel, according to Hopkins. But even before that, the pseudonymous Claire Francis began pointing out potential image duplications and other manipulations in Semenza’s work on PubPeer, as described in October 2020 by Leonid Schneider.
The four papers retracted yesterday are:
- Hypoxia-inducible factors mediate coordinated RhoA-ROCK1 expression and signaling in breast cancer cells
- Mutual antagonism between hypoxia-inducible factors 1α and 2α regulates oxygen sensing and cardio-respiratory homeostasis
- Anthracycline chemotherapy inhibits HIF-1 transcriptional activity and tumor-induced mobilization of circulating angiogenic cells
- Hypoxia-inducible factors are required for chemotherapy resistance of breast cancer stem cells
A representative notice:
We are retracting this article due to concerns with Figure 5. In Figure 5A, there is a concern that the first and second lanes of the HIF-2α panel show the same data, and that the first and second lanes of the HIF-1α panel show the same data, despite all being labeled as unique data. In Figure 5D, there is a concern that the second and third lanes of the HIF-1β panel show the same data despite being labeled as unique data. We believe that the overall conclusions of the paper remain valid, but we are retracting the work due to these underlying concerns about the figure. Confirmatory experimentation has now been performed and the results can be found in a preprint article posted on bioRxiv, ‘Homeostatic responses to hypoxia by the carotid body and adrenal medulla are based on mutual antagonism between HIF-1α and HIF-2α’ (https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.11.499380). We apologize for the inconvenience.
Together, the papers have been cited more than 750 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. From 1998 until 2013, Semenza was principal investigator on NIH grants totaling more than $9 million.
“Francis” tells Retraction Watch:
I saw problematic Gregg Semenza publications before his Nobel Prize.
I recognised his name when he got his Nobel Prize and went back for a second look.
Had I got him wrong?
No, there were more problematic publications.
One of Semenza’s co-authors on one of the papers is Denis Wirtz, the vice provost for research at Hopkins.
Semenza, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment, is hardly the only Nobel Prize winner to later retract papers. We describe four such cases in a 2019 column for STAT, and Frances Arnold did the same in 2020. Daniel Kahneman walked back some claims, although he did not retract a paper per se.
It is also not Semenza’s first retraction. In 2011, a paper he co-authored with Naoki Mori – a name familiar to Retraction Watch readers – was retracted.
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].
“hardly the only Nobel Prize winner to later retract papers”.
Robert J Lekowitz retraction.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/82986F4A4D89EA465E822A9809F154
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2012/lefkowitz/facts/
https://medicine.duke.edu/profile/robert-j-lefkowitz
One assumes that the nobel prize was awarded for research that was replicated and built upon by his peers in that field of research. That this nobel prize winning research result itself as a concept would not later be viewed as a fallacy based on a few retractions.
That’s an assumption. Much of the chattering middle-classes assume that they will live forever until the grim reaper comes a knockin’.
I mean, was there anyone more “chattering middle-class” than Fernando Pessoa?
Thank you. He fully deserves it.
Well, they’re not wrong. You. Me. The chattering middle classes. We all live until we die. The ‘forever’ varies by individual.
I think that Gregg Semenza’s Nobel prize should be based on his work not on the work of the other 2 who were awarded the Nobel prize jointly with him. You can know a field well enough that you can predict what others think it should be like without having your own experimental results. It is supposed to be about testing hypotheses, discovery and increased understanding, not about placing bets on a horse race
Um, the Nobel was based on his work, just as his co-awardees contributed their own work. Nobels are not awarded on the basis of ‘here’s something everyone predicted’, they are awarded for groundbreaking research and insights that have changed the field. To quote the Nobel committee, “William Kaelin, Peter Ratcliffe, and Gregg Semenza discovered how cells can sense and adapt to changing oxygen availability. During the 1990s they identified a molecular machinery that regulates the activity of genes in response to varying levels of oxygen. The discoveries may lead to new treatments of anemia, cancer and many other diseases.”
As for his work, this is near the start; original empirical research since validated by many others, not a ‘pretend study’. https://journals.asm.org/doi/abs/10.1128/mcb.12.12.5447-5454.1992
Should the papers in the post be retracted, and only resubmitted after replication, with trustworthy images? Sure. Does this mean that everything Semenza (and his coauthors, don’t forget them) ever touched needs to be retracted? No. It might be worth looking at the author list, who agreed with retractions, and who did not agree or did not respond.
I started discovering incorrect stuff (i.e.,provably false, in some cases mathematically so!) in published work as early as the 1980s and gave up thinking that even scientists could be trusted (much less judges, lawers, cops, or politicians) and switched to computers where you frequently discover you’re right or wrong within a nanosecond of hitting the enter key, and have been well-off (financially as well as emotionally) ever since. Profscam is disgusting, and whether mistakes are deliberate or not, they no longer surprise me even in the “hard” sciences, but it still saddens and disgusts me.
Oh, my goodness. We have a purist over here. A bona fide, jaded puritanical stickler. He only deals in absolutes. He can’t trust ANYONE! Someone pity and simultaneously admire this pedantic perfectionist before he’s nominated for an Oscar. What a performance.
Good call! It takes integrity and courage to make such a decision. Glad to know you are doing well in your new field. Best wishes.
I think it takes courage to take a such decision, many works out there are not exactly different, however, probably ego don’t let their authors to retract. Therefore, I hope Gregg will continues his work towards finding the temporary truth, that understanding can provide.-
The big question is: on which time-scale the process is self-correcting? Months? Years? Centuries? Is it the case that mainstream research in certain areas, as claimed by some eminent scientists as well as by me, is based on fabricated data?
What’s the point of this if it was replicated anyway? The word “problematic”… is problematic. Everybody wants a piece of the pie and some people are fine with the crumbs that fall to the floor. How did I even get here?
Is it fair to Daniel Kahneman, who got overly excited over small amounts of evidence confirming hypotheses, versus outright fabricating evidence by Gregg Semenza?
That’s like comparing the usual TED talk to the Elizabeth Holmes TED talk.
Also to be fair, Francis Arnold’s retraction is pretty much a model of how to handle such a situation IMO.
The fact that Semenza’s case is 4 papers makes it harder to chalk it up to “nobody is perfect”
Cla[i]re Francis sic?
What’s the surprise here? Academia is not merit-based from the get-go. It can’t be merit-based since it all depends on peer evaluation. Sooner or later the whole system will fall apart. We won’t be alive to see it but it will happen.
Dr. Gregg Semenza, MD, PhD is an established physician-scientist and has dramatically advanced the hypoxia science fields. It’s hard to understand why some people are maliciously blaming his outstanding works. I hope people would not misjudge him due to a few tiny errors and mistakes.
6th retraction for Gregg Semenza.
pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2305537120
PNAS
RETRACTION
Retraction for Lee et al., Acriflavine inhibits HIF-1 dimerization, tumor growth, and vascularization April 26, 2023 120 (18) e2305537120 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2305537120
Vol. 120 | No. 18
Retraction of “Acriflavine inhibits HIF-1 dimerization, tumor growth, and vascularization,” by KangAe Lee, Huafeng Zhang, David Z. Qian, Sergio Rey, Jun O. Liu, and Gregg L. Semenza, which was first published October 20, 2009; 10.1073/pnas.0909353106 (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 17910–17915). The undersigned authors note, “We are retracting this article due to issues regarding the bottom panel of Figure 2D. Visible in this blot are the GST-HIF-1β band of interest at the top, a faint doublet in the middle, and a strong band migrating just above GST at the bottom, which is likely a degradation product of GST-HIF-1β. It appears that in the middle doublet, lanes 2, 5, and 8 are duplicate images; lanes 3, 6, and 9 are duplicate images; and lanes 4 and 7 are duplicate images. There is also concern of possible manipulation of the data shown across the bottom band. We believe that the overall conclusions of the paper remain valid, but we are retracting the work due to these underlying concerns about the figure. We apologize for the inconvenience.” David Z. Qian, Sergio Rey, Jun O. Liu, and Gregg L. Semenza
7th Retraction for Gregg Semenza.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41388-023-02720-8
Retraction Note
Published: 23 May 2023
Retraction Note: HIF-1-dependent expression of angiopoietin-like 4 and L1CAM mediates vascular metastasis of hypoxic breast cancer cells to the lungs
H. Zhang, C. C. L. Wong, …G. L. Semenza
Oncogene (2023)
The Original Article was published on 22 August 2011
Retraction to: Oncogene https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2011.365, published online 22 August 2011
The authors have retracted this article as multiple image irregularities have been noted within this article, specifically:
Figure 1A, upper panel (HIF-1a blot), lanes five and seven appear to be duplicates.
Figure 6B, lower panel (b-actin blot), the first six lanes appear to be identical to Fig. 6G, lower panel (b-actin blot).
Figure 3G, the image of the third mouse in the D10 Saline group is identical to the image of the third mouse in the D21 Digoxin group.
G Semenza, CC Wong, P Korangath, L Schito, J Chen, B Krishnamachary, V Raman and S Sukumar agree to this retraction. D Gilkes does not agree to this retraction. H Zhang and W Mitzner have not responded to any correspondence from the editor about this retraction. The editor was not able to obtain current email addresses for H Wei, P Chaturvedi, L Zhen and PT Winnard.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Vascular Program, Institute for Cell Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
H. Zhang, C. C. L. Wong, H. Wei, D. M. Gilkes, P. Chaturvedi, L. Schito, J. Chen & G. L. Semenza
Department of Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
H. Zhang, P. Korangath, S. Sukumar & G. L. Semenza
McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
C. C. L. Wong, H. Wei, D. M. Gilkes, P. Chaturvedi, J. Chen & G. L. Semenza
Department of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
B. Krishnamachary, P. T. Winnard Jr & V. Raman
School of Life Science, The University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China
H. Zhang
University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, Italy
L. Schito
Division of Physiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
L. Zhen & W. A. Mitzner
Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, Radiation Oncology, and Biological Chemistry, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
G. L. Semenza
Corresponding author
Correspondence to G. L. Semenza.
You do nontechnical readers a huge disservice by conflating retractions because of fraud-integrity and retractions because of error. The ethical content of such retractions is hugely different and by consistently acting as if they were equivalent this blog behaves unethically.
2 withdrawals from J Biol Chem for Gregg Semenza. J Biol Chem uses the word withdrawal instead of retraction.
https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(23)02153-1/fulltext
https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(23)02172-5/fulltext
Retraction number 10, Gregg Semenza, Molecular Cancer Research, 1st October 2023.
https://aacrjournals.org/mcr/article/21/10/1120/729213/Retraction-Procollagen-Lysyl-Hydroxylase-2-Is