Category: cell biology

A Wnt-er’s tale: Blood pulls second signaling paper from Spanish scientists over image fakery

Blood has pulled a paper 2007 paper from a group of Spanish researchers, one of whom appears to have been manipulating images.

The group’s work became the focus of expressions of concern from the Journal of Clinical Oncology this spring and in 2010.

The article, “Epigenetic regulation of Wnt-signaling pathway in acute lymphoblastic leukemia,” purported to show “a role of abnormal Wnt signaling in ALL and establish a group of patients with a significantly worse prognosis (methylated group)” and earned a commentary on the significance of the findings.

But as the notice explains, the first author lifted and manipulated a figure from a previously published article: Continue reading A Wnt-er’s tale: Blood pulls second signaling paper from Spanish scientists over image fakery

Seeing red (wine): Another retraction for Dipak Das, making count 13

Today’s Retraction Watch, to paraphrase Sesame Street, is brought to you by the number 13.

Earlier, we reported on several retractions from Diederik Stapel that bring his total to that number, and now we’ve learned about number 13 for Dipak Das. Das is of course the UConn researcher who was found to have committed 145 counts of misconduct in his studies of the red wine compound resveratrol and other subjects.

Here’s the notice, from The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, for “Resveratrol, a unique phytoalexin present in red wine, delivers either survival signal or death signal to the ischemic myocardium depending on dose:” Continue reading Seeing red (wine): Another retraction for Dipak Das, making count 13

Retraction number four appears in PNAS for work of Alirio Melendez, who has resigned post at U Liverpool

Alirio Melendez, who has had three of his papers retracted amidst suspicions about 70, has had another one retracted, this one in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). And he has also resigned from his post at the University of Liverpool, we have just learned.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Retraction number four appears in PNAS for work of Alirio Melendez, who has resigned post at U Liverpool

University of Nebraska investigating work of lung researchers as journal issues Expression of Concern

The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM) has issued an Expression of Concern about a paper published online earlier this year, after concerns about the data prompted an investigation by the University of Nebraska.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading University of Nebraska investigating work of lung researchers as journal issues Expression of Concern

Biochemistry journal retracts paper for being, well, less than conclusive

Here’s a new one that may stoke the debate about whether a paper deserves retraction merely for being wrong or less than fully right.

The journal Cell Biochemistry and Function, a Wiley title, has retracted an article it published earlier this year by a pair of Chinese authors — or, rather, from one author an an unwitting co-author. That authorship issue alone should be enough to warrant a retraction. But the retraction notice also includes a more interesting matter: Continue reading Biochemistry journal retracts paper for being, well, less than conclusive

Two retractions in biophysics journal, one because article is “too preliminary and potentially misleading”

We’ve seen vigorous debates here on Retraction Watch about when studies should be retracted. Does it require fraud? Just not being reproducible? Somewhere in between?

Given the apparent divergence of opinions on the issue, we thought it would be worth highlighting a case that involves language we haven’t seen before. Here’s the notice for “Apoptosis of CT26 colorectal cancer cells induced by Clostridium difficile toxin A stimulates potent anti-tumor immunity,” which originally appeared online in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications in April: Continue reading Two retractions in biophysics journal, one because article is “too preliminary and potentially misleading”

Group retracts microRNA paper after realizing reagent was skewing results

A retraction from a high-profile group uncovered a technical limitation involving a widely used reagent.

Some quick background: the sequence hypothesis central hypothesis dogma of biology states that DNA gets transcribed to RNA that gets translated into proteins. Some RNAs, however, don’t code for proteins, but instead help to regulate gene expression. These microRNAs are tiny in size, but can regulate gene expression across animal and plant kingdoms.

In September 2011, the Molecular Cell published an entire issue with regulatory RNA as its theme. V. Narry Kim, associate professor at Seoul National University and high-profile microRNA researcher contributed a study that her group has now retracted just months later on June 29.

The problem? A reagent used to purify miRNAs favors some miRNAs and fails to isolate those rich low in guanine and cytosine — two of the four building blocks of RNA — or those with few secondary folding structures.

Elsevier parasitology journal retracts paper after finding author made up peer reviewer email addresses

Note to authors: If a journal asks you to suggest reviewers for your submitted manuscript, don’t thank them by faking the reviewer’s emails.

You might just get caught.

That’s what happened recently at Experimental Parasitology, according to the retraction notice for “Entamoeba histolytica: Cloning, expression and evaluation of the efficacy of a recombinant amebiasis cysteine proteinase gene (ACP1) antigen in minipig:” Continue reading Elsevier parasitology journal retracts paper after finding author made up peer reviewer email addresses

Another opaque notice from the JBC, for paper author says is correct and valid

The Journal of Biological Chemistry has posted another of its inscrutable and opaque retraction notices, this one for a study first published in September 2011. The retraction reads in full: Continue reading Another opaque notice from the JBC, for paper author says is correct and valid

Science has “not asked for a correction or retraction” of arsenic life paper, and why situation is unlike XMRV-CFS

The science world has been abuzz with news that a 2010 Science paper on an arsenic-based strain of bacteria had been refuted by two new studies published Sunday night. Yesterday on Retraction Watch, David Sanders argued the paper should still be retracted. So we were curious whether the editors of the journal had ever asked Felisa Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues to retract the paper. Science tells Retraction Watch: Continue reading Science has “not asked for a correction or retraction” of arsenic life paper, and why situation is unlike XMRV-CFS