basic life sciences retractions – Page 79

Fraud fells Alzheimer’s “made to order” neurons paper in Cell

In 2011, a group of researchers at Columbia University reported in Cell that they had been able to convert skin cells from patients with Alzheimer’s disease into functioning neurons — a finding that raised the exciting prospect of “made to order” brain cells for patients with the degenerative disease. As one researcher not involved with the study, led by Asa Abeliovich, put it:

“[This is] simply a remarkable and complete piece of work which will now set a standard for stem cell work in neurological disease. The standard of the characterization of the neuronal cultures is very high,” John Hardy at University College London, U.K., wrote to [Alzforum]. He was not involved in the work but is taking a similar approach in his own lab.

According to the abstract of “Directed Conversion of Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Skin Fibroblasts into Functional Neurons:”

Continue reading Fraud fells Alzheimer’s “made to order” neurons paper in Cell

Lack of citation prompts correction in Nature journal

It’s not unusual to hear authors bemoan the fact that a new paper doesn’t cite their work that set the stage for a scientific advance. “The journal limited me to [a seemingly abitrary number of] references,” authors sometimes shrug, with or without apology. This week, however, we found a case of that which seems to have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.

The authors of a September 2013 article in Nature Communications have issued a correction for the piece, which failed to cite the source of a key step in their experiment.

The article, “Val66Met polymorphism of BDNF alters prodomain structure to induce neuronal growth cone retraction,” came from the lab of William “Clay” Bracken, a biochemist at Weill Cornell Medical College. According to the abstract: Continue reading Lack of citation prompts correction in Nature journal

Waseda University checking dissertations for plagiarism in wake of STAP stem cell misconduct finding

Waseda University in Japan says it will be vetting every doctoral dissertation it awards its graduate-level students in Advanced Science & Engineering* for signs of plagiarism, according to a report in the Japan News, a site of the Yomiuri Shimbun. The paper reports that:

Continue reading Waseda University checking dissertations for plagiarism in wake of STAP stem cell misconduct finding

Pain study retracted for bogus data is second withdrawal for University of Calgary group

Back in January 2013, we wrote about the retraction of a paper in Diabetes that the authors had “submitted without knowledge of inherent errors or abnormalities that they recognized in retrospect after submission.”

Now, Molecular Pain has retracted a paper by the same authors, this time for data manipulation. The article, “Comparison of central versus peripheral delivery of pregabalin in neuropathic pain states,” was written by Cory Toth, a clinical neuroscientist at the University of Calgary, in Canada, and colleagues. It has been cited eight times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Toth said of the Diabetes article at the time:
Continue reading Pain study retracted for bogus data is second withdrawal for University of Calgary group

Regenerative medicine, regenerative publishing

Developmental Biology has retracted a 2009 paper by an group of regenerative medicine specialists who, it seems, were regenerating more than just cells.

The article, titled “The human placenta is a hematopoietic organ during the embryonic and fetal periods of development,” was led by Susan Fisher, of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. It has been cited 32 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

According to the abstract: Continue reading Regenerative medicine, regenerative publishing

“I am deeply saddened and disturbed:” Co-author of retracted Nature paper reveals how problems came to light

On Wednesday, we reported on a Nature retraction of a paper whose corresponding author had also had a Cell paper retracted, and had been found to have committed a “violation of academic integrity” by Utrecht University. Today, we present the back story of how those retractions came to be, from another co-author of both papers, Ben Scheres, of Wageningen University: Continue reading “I am deeply saddened and disturbed:” Co-author of retracted Nature paper reveals how problems came to light

Authors of controversial STAP stem cell study author correct 2011 paper

There have been a number of developments in the unraveling of two Nature studies out of the RIKEN Institute in Japan and Harvard purporting to show an easy way to create stem cells. There was an interim report of RIKEN’s investigation last Friday, and more details emerged this week.

And today, the Japan Times reported that last week, a correction of a 2011 paper by many of the same authors appeared in Tissue Engineering Part A. Here’s the correction notice, dated March 13: Continue reading Authors of controversial STAP stem cell study author correct 2011 paper

Nature paper by researcher found to have violated academic integrity retracted

A 2013 paper in Nature that was among those whose first or last author had committed a “violation of academic integrity,” according to Utrecht University, has been retracted.

Here’s the notice: for “CLASP-mediated cortical microtubule organization guides PIN polarization axis,” whose corresponding author was Pankaj Dhonukshe: Continue reading Nature paper by researcher found to have violated academic integrity retracted

Why was that lung cancer paper retracted? The “authors’ reason,” of course

Two researchers who wrote a review article on the genetics of lung cancer have retracted the paper. But why evidently is for them to know and us to find out.

The article, “Epigenetic aberrant methylation of tumor suppressor genes in small cell lung cancer,” was published in the August 2013 issue of the Journal of Thoracic Disease by authors from Shandong University in China.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Why was that lung cancer paper retracted? The “authors’ reason,” of course