Science has issued expressions of concern for two articles from the lab of Daniel Durocher, a professor of molecular genetics at the University of Toronto.
The notices, and two more editor’s notes on Nature articles, follow PubPeer comments on several of Durocher’s papers pointing out potentially duplicated images, as described by ForBetterScience. Durocher has responded to many of the comments promising to look into the issues.
Besides his academic positions at Toronto and the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Sinai Health, Durocher co-founded Repare Therapeutics, a biotech company with five ongoing clinical trials of potential treatments for cancer.
The two Science articles, “Mitosis inhibits DNA double-strand break repair to guard against telomere fusions” from 2014, and “Orchestration of the DNA-damage response by the RNF8 ubiquitin ligase,” from 2007, together have been cited nearly 1,000 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
In an email to Retraction Watch, Jovana Drinjakovic, the science communications officer at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Sinai Health, confirmed the institution is investigating the 2014 paper:
We acknowledge that the journal Science is planning to publish the Editorial Expression of Concern regarding two studies that were published in 2007 and 2014. While the 2007 paper has a figure error that the authors are working to correct, the 2014 paper was noted to contain data irregularities. As soon as the senior author was made aware of the irregularities pertaining to the 2014 study, he promptly notified Sinai Health. This triggered an internal inquiry, in accordance with its policy on addressing research misconduct allegations.
We received Drinjakovic’s email after reaching out to Durocher for comment.
“The senior author is currently in discussions with the journal about the next steps,” Drinjakovic said, referring to Durocher. “It would be inappropriate to comment further on this matter until the internal process has been completed.”
In April 2021, an anonymous user on PubPeer commented on the 2007 paper, identifying “more similar than expected” microscopy images in one figure. Durocher responded the same month, agreeing with the observation and stating he would “search for the original timelapse movie and will correct if needed.”
The expression of concern for the article states:
The authors informed the editors of a duplicate image in Fig. 3D. We are alerting readers to this concern while we work with the authors to determine an appropriate correction to the paper.
Stephen P. Jackson, of the University of Cambridge, in England, and the penultimate author on the paper, has previously retracted articles from Cell, Nature, and Science.
Last month, scientific sleuth Sholto David, who uses the PubPeer handle “Mycosphaerella arachidis,” pointed out potential duplications in six figures of the 2014 Science article. Durocher responded:
Thank you for raising these issues. They are taken seriously. I have alerted my Institute director about the noted irregularities and they will be investigated.
The expression of concern states:
The editors and authors have been made aware of potential data integrity issues in several figures. We are alerting readers to this concern while we work with the institution and the authors to determine an appropriate course of action.
David told Retraction Watch the notice “should just be a retraction.” He called the paper “very muddled” and its data “extensively manipulated.”
Meagan Phelan, the communications director for the Science family of journals, confirmed PubPeer “was among the impetuses” for the notices. She added:
The authors have been swift and thorough to respond to us and to address related issues. We’re seeing more and more authors work quickly and thoughtfully to correct the record in this way, and it continues to encourage us.
On November 21, Nature added editor’s notes to two of Durocher’s papers, “A mechanism for the suppression of homologous recombination in G1 cells,” from 2015, and “53BP1 is a reader of the DNA-damage-induced H2A Lys 15 ubiquitin mark,” from 2013. The articles have been cited nearly 900 times. Both notices state:
Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of data presented in this article. Further editorial action will be taken if appropriate once the investigation into the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.
David also in November commented on the Nature studies with questions about the data. Durocher and the first author of one of the articles responded, promising to look into the questions.
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].