Two sets of authors have withdrawn their papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry. We’re telling you about the both together because, true to JBC form, there’s not too much to say.
The retraction notices for both papers — about the molecular underpinnings of cardiac fibroblasts and melanoma cells — are identical:
Continue reading Authors withdraw two papers from JBC — and that’s all we know
The Journal of Biological Chemistry has posted withdrawal notices for six papers that had already been withdrawn, some more than a decade ago, in an effort to resolve “PubMed indexing problems.”
Each paper had been pulled by the author before it appeared in print, but still appeared online on the the journal’s website and in PubMed.
By our count, the journal has posted six notices so far, and said we should expect to see more in the future.
Kaoru Sakabe the Manager of Publication Issues at the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, which publishes JBC, provided a statement on the new withdrawal notices: Continue reading Years after papers were withdrawn, JBC issues notices
The authors of a Journal of Biological Chemistry paper on a breast cancer gene are withdrawing it following an investigation at Roswell Park Cancer Institute that found a figure contained “manipulated” data.
Last author Toru Ouchi is based at Roswell in the department of cancer genetics.
Second to last author Sam W. Lee, at Massachusetts General Hospital, lost a Molecular Cell paper in 2013 after some figures were “inappropriately manipulated.”
Here’s the withdrawal note from JBC (which, unusually — but happily so — includes some explanation of what’s wrong with the paper): Continue reading Investigation leads to retraction of breast cancer paper, second for one author
An investigation by the University College London has cleared prominent geneticist David Latchman of misconduct, but concluded he has “procedural matters in his lab that required attention.”
Latchman has two retracted papers; on PubPeer, there are questions about nearly four dozen more.
The results of the investigation were first reported by the Times Higher Education. We also received a short statement from a UCL spokesperson:
Researchers have withdrawn a 2010 article in the Journal of Biological Chemistry about an immune regulator.
The paper was pulled without any explanation (in standard JBC style). Here’s the complete notice:
This article has been withdrawn by the authors.
The study’s authors were based out of Shandong University Medical School, Jinan General Hospital of Jinan Command and Duke University Medical Center.
Two of the authors have had previous papers retracted.
Continue reading Authors withdraw immunology study, no reasons given
An official inquiry by the University of Pittsburgh has led to two more retractions for a pair of cancer researchers, Tong Wu and Chang Han. By our count, the pair now have four retractions under their belt, all the result of the university investigation.
The Journal of Biological Chemistry published the notices earlier this month, after it was discovered the papers contained cropped panels, among other issues. Importantly, the two papers appear to even have shared some data.
One 2006 paper, “Modulation of Stat3 Activation by the Cytosolic Phospholipase A2α and Cyclooxygenase-2-controlled Prostaglandin E2 Signaling Pathway,” investigated the molecular actors in cancer growth, such as overexpression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). It has been cited 34 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the notice:
Two biologists have retracted a second paper on the development of neurons, but that’s about all we know.
The 2007 paper from the Journal of Biological Chemistry, “The Interaction of mPar3 with the Ubiquitin Ligase Smurf2 Is Required for the Establishment of Neuronal Polarity,” concerns the role of a protein, mPar3, in neuron development. It has been cited 29 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
We don’t know why this one was retracted, because JBC (as usual) offered no explanation in its retraction note:
Continue reading JBC retraction on neuron development marks second for two biologists
Biophysicists in India have retracted two crystallography papers describing protein binding sites following “concerns,” according to one retraction note.
The last author on both papers, however, told us he believed the retractions were the result of “trivial errors.” Although one journal praised him in its retraction note for his “positive engagement,” he said the process left him feeling “disgusted.”
One paper, “Structural Studies on Molecular Interactions between Camel Peptidoglycan Recognition Protein, CPGRP-S, and Peptidoglycan Moieties N-Acetylglucosamine and N-Acetylmuramic Acid,” was withdrawn from the Journal of Biological Chemistry in August 2014.
The second, “Mode of binding of the antithyroid drug propylthiouracil to mammalian haem peroxidases,” was retracted from Acta Crystallographica Section F this month. Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading Two crystallography papers break apart for “trivial errors,” says author
The authors of a 2014 study on the biochemical changes that can encourage the progression of cancer have withdrawn the paper from the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
The post from the JBC – which we’ve noted are rarely helpful – doesn’t provide any details or reason for the withdrawal. As usual, this is all we got:
Continue reading Another author withdrawal from JBC earns another opaque notice
A 2002 paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry on how lung cancer cells resist death has been retracted for duplicating figures from a 2001 paper.
The retracted paper, “Fibroblast growth factor-2 induces translational regulation of Bcl-XL and Bcl-2 via a MEK-dependent pathway: correlation with resistance to etoposide-induced apoptosis,” shares the first and last authors with the 2001 paper, in Oncogene, as well as two other co-authors.
Here’s JBC’s entire retraction note, a sub-genre with which we’ve become intimately familiar by now:
Continue reading JBC cancer paper felled by duplication is one author’s second retraction this month