Year after year, a husband-and-wife team at a university in Iran has been publishing studies involving research on cell lines ostensibly purchased from the Pasteur Institute of Iran, in Tehran.
But the couple may never have been in possession of the cells. In correspondence obtained by Retraction Watch, the Pasteur Institute told their employer, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, only three of the many cell lines described in their publications had been available at the national cell bank over the past decade.
A university official confirmed the two researchers – Fraidoon Kavoosi, an associate professor in the department of anatomical science, and his wife Masumeh Sanaei, an assistant professor in the same department – were under investigation.
Amir Abdoli, vice president of research and technology at Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, told us:
There were some ambiguities regarding the availability of cell lines in the Pasteur Institute of Iran as well as the place of [the couple’s] works, as their works have not been performed in the laboratories of Jahrom University of Medical Sciences. We asked the authors to respond several times, but we didn’t receive a reasonable answer. Hence, we had to send the documents and evidence to the Iran National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Research for future investigation and decision.
We have not yet contacted the journals because we are waiting for the ethics committee’s decision.
Abdoli added that following a vote by the Basic Science Research Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, the school had stopped accepting new research proposals from the two professors.
In theory, it’s possible that researchers claiming to have obtained cell lines from a repository that doesn’t stock them may still have worked with those cell lines, according to Jennifer Byrne, director of biobanking with NSW Health Pathology, in Australia, and a professor of molecular oncology at the University of Sydney:
For example, they could have obtained them from someone else who they assumed had obtained them from the claimed repository, but didn’t. The claimed resource could reflect people wanting to signal that they obtained cell lines from a known repository, as this is best practice, or a trust signal, when in fact, many researchers pass cell lines between each other as this is quicker, cheaper and more convenient. That said, claiming to use cell lines from a repository that doesn’t stock them could be considered a yellow flag, as this is a misleading claim, although a claim that could have been made in good faith.
In a study published earlier this year, Byrne and her colleagues found hundreds of papers consistently misspelled the names of cell lines the authors said they used in their work – possibly a sign of paper mill involvement. The Iranian case is different, as the cell lines described in the couple’s articles seem to be real.
“I don’t know how often people might claim to have obtained cell lines that do exist from places that don’t stock these cell lines, as we focussed on non-verifiable cell lines in our study,” Byrne told us.
Kavoosi did not respond to emails requesting comment. We were unable to find contact information for Sanaei.
Since 2014, the couple has coauthored dozens of studies, according to their Google Scholar profiles. Many have appeared in Iran-based journals, such as the International Journal of Preventive Medicine, Advanced Biomedical Research, and Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences, all published by Wolters Kluwer, as well as the Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention.
Most of their work has focused on assessing effects of established or potential drugs on human cancer cells. The suspect articles all state the cells were obtained from the Pasteur Institute of Iran.
But a letter from Jahrom’s president to the Pasteur Institute dated Oct. 31, 2023, suggests the the research duo’s institution had grown suspicious of their work.
According to a machine translation of the letter, Mohammad Rahmanian inquired about a long list of cell lines he said were unavailable from Pasteur’s website but were needed by his school for research. He listed the names of 70 cell lines he was looking to purchase in an attached spreadsheet.
We spot-checked the cell lines in the spreadsheet and found they appeared to correspond to cells Kavoosi, Sanaei and their coauthors stated they had purchased from the Pasteur Institute of Iran.
In a reply to Jahrom dated April 16, 2024, Delaram Doroud, deputy director of research, technology and education at the Pasteur Institute of Iran, made reference to a subsequent letter and a phone call from Jahrom University and explained that, in the past 10 years, only three of the 70 cell lines had been available from the institute.
We sought comment from the Pasteur Institute of Iran, including Doroud, and the Iran National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Research, but have not heard back.
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].
It seems that their works have not been performed in the laboratories of their university. However, in most of their articles, only the names of these two authors have been affiliated, and in none of their articles there is no other author from another institution or university.
It is also strange that there is not any information or acknowledgment regarding the place of their work, which person who helped to do their lab tests, or gifted the cells to the researchers. At least, the authors should have mentioned this information in the acknowledgment section of their articles.
These cases increase the possibility of data fabrication.
The authors must response to these questions.
The possibility of data fabrication is plausible. The journals must reassess their data.
The ethics committee and the related journals should investigate this issue. This case is very suspicious!
This is an important point. The retraction watch should contact with the related journals in this issue.
Why the researchers didn’t response to these ambiguities?
I think that this case is not data fabrication, but it is data synthesis!
The related journals should start an investigation regarding data and methods of articles of this couple. It seems that there are methodological problems as such.
Another problem is that they are husband and wife, and in all of their articles FK is corresponding author and his wife is first author. No author from other universities or institutions were affiliated. Most of their articles have two authors, the name of this husband and wife! This is strange, the possibility of data fabrication…
The possibility of collusion and data making ! The researchers must respond to this questions.
The pubpeer link:
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=Fraidoon+Kavoosi
The retraction watch should contact the related journals.
A strange thing regarding their articles is that a SIGNIFICANT STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION has been found in nearly all of their articles. It means that the established or potential drugs had SIGNIFICANT effects on cancer cells in nearly all of their articles.
This is an important point and In my opinion, the retraction watch and the related journals should consider these data and reassess the validity of their articles. In my opinion, this couple did DATA SYNTHESIS.
Why this couple of husband and wife does not clarify about the place of research and the source of their cell lines. This case is very suspicious.
I think this case is not complicated. If the authors do not clarify the two simple and clear questions of the location of the research and the origin of the cell lines, then this couple did DATA SYNTHESIS.
This is the best way
Another scenario is that the authors will say that they got cell lines from another institution or person as well as determined location of their research. But there are several ambitious:
Why they didn’t noticed in the acknowledgment section?.
Why their articles had two authors?
Why there are not other authors from other institutions or universities?
Their articles have also many problems in the methods.
Why their results are statisticaly significant in nearly all of their articles?
Considering the above comments as well as other critical comments, it seems that it is DATA SYNTHESIS.
According to the report of Retraction watch and the explanations of the officials and the review of the articles and the authors’ lack of response, their data creation is evident.
Besides several ambiguities of their articles, I suggest that the retraction watch will also assess the methods and results of their articles by expert researchers. It seems that there are many methodological problems in their experiments.
I am very eager to hear the follow-up of the retractionwatch. Is there any new information? Have the authors answered the question of the location of their research? Have the authors answered the question of the origin of the cell lines?
Thanks for the Retraction watch report. Please publish a report of the actions taken and the new results for the case of this wife and husband.
I think this case is not complicated.
Please follow this case to the end and bring it to a conclusion. And report the result to the public.
We are waiting for the retraction watch new reports in this case. This case is very suspicious,
1) Husband and wife.
2) no other affiliation from other universities.
3) unavailable cell lines.
4) undetermined location of the studies.
5) no information regarding cell lines, location, any colleagues, etc, in the acknowledgment section of their articles.
6) several methodological problems.
7) significant statistical results in all of their articles.
8) no response from this couple.
9) most of their publication in Iranian based journal.
10) in the method section of their articles, the softwares for analysis of gene expressions and flow cytometry were undetermined.