Eight papers by two emeritus researchers from Duke University have been retracted in recent months for alleged image duplications. Although the researchers had worked at the university for decades, Duke officials have not responded to repeated inquiries about the retractions.
The papers were published between 2004 and 2014 in The Journal of Cellular Biochemistry and PLOS One. According to the retraction statements, the articles contained images and figures that appeared similar or identical to others in the same paper or published elsewhere.
The two researchers, Salvatore Pizzo, a former chair of Duke’s Department of Pathology, and his colleague Uma Kant Misra, spent much of their careers studying prostate cancer. From 1993 to 2015, Pizzo and Misra published 70 papers together, with 26 where they are the only authors. Pizzo did not respond to repeated emails from Retraction Watch asking for comment. Misra died Sept. 18.
Multiple emails and phone calls to members of the Duke media relations team and to research integrity staff over the course of five weeks have gone unanswered. Duke has been at the center of several misconduct cases that have resulted in, among other penalties, sanctions from the National Institutes of Health following revelations about misconduct in cancer trials, a $112.5 million settlement in a whistleblower lawsuit, and a rare permanent ban from federal funding by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity.
On PubPeer, commenters noted that several papers authored by Pizzo and Misra contained images or figures that appeared to be similar or identical to images used in other papers by the two scientists.
A spokesperson for Wiley, which publishes The Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, where five of the retracted articles appeared, told us the company was aware of the critiques and had “received numerous secondary concerns from third parties.” The articles, retracted July 15-16, all had image duplication issues. “In all instances, these image elements have been used to represent different experimental conditions,” three of the five notices stated.
The retracted Wiley papers are:
- Activation of Akt/PDK Signaling in Macrophages Upon Binding of Receptor-Recognized Forms of α2-Macroglobulin to Its Cellular Receptor: Effect of Silencing the CREB Gene, published in Sept. 9, 2004, 15 citations, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
- Transcription factor TFII-I causes transcriptional upregulation of GRP78 synthesis in prostate cancer cells, published Dec. 18, 2008, 33 citations.
- Epac1-Induced Cellular Proliferation in Prostate Cancer Cells Is Mediated by B-Raf/ERK and mTOR Signaling Cascades, published Sept. 1, 2009, 60 citations.
- Upregulation of mTORC2 Activation by the Selective Agonist of EPAC, 8-CPT-2Me-cAMP, in Prostate Cancer Cells: Assembly of a Multiprotein Signaling Complex, published Dec. 15, 2011, 38 citations.
- Loss of Cell Surface TFII-I Promotes Apoptosis in Prostate Cancer Cells Stimulated With Activated α2-Macroglobulin, published Feb. 24, 2011, 13 citations.
PLOS One decided to retract three articles by the pair “due to unresolved image concerns that call into question the integrity and reliability of the reported results and conclusions,” Maria Zalm, senior editor of publication ethics at PLOS, told us.
The PLOS One papers retracted in June are:
- Receptor-Recognized α2-Macroglobulin Binds to Cell Surface-Associated GRP78 and Activates mTORC1 and mTORC2 Signaling in Prostate Cancer Cells, published Dec. 14, 2012, 32 citations.
- Evidence for a Pro-Proliferative Feedback Loop in Prostate Cancer: The Role of Epac1 and COX-2-Dependent Pathways, published April 30, 2013, 31 citations.
- Activated α2-macroglobulin binding to cell surface GRP78 induces T-loop phosphorylation of Akt1 by PDK1 in association with raptor, published Feb. 6, 2014, 18 citations.
Zalm said the journal’s investigation began after “multiple readers” brought concerns to the editors about images in the articles.
According to Zalm, Pizzo responded to early editorial communications related to the concerns, but he did not respond to the decision to retract the work. Misra did not respond to any of the journal’s communications, she added.
In addition to the three retracted articles, PLOS found problematic images in another article by the two researchers, but decided that these concerns should be addressed with an editorial note rather than a full retraction. The publisher also performed an “initial assessment” of other articles by Pizzo and Misra and did not identify similar concerns.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, 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].