Nature paper on cancer retracted after years of scrutiny – Retraction Watch
Following 5 years of criticism, a bunch of researchers based mostly at Stanford and elsewhere have retracted a 2006 paper in Nature for “image anomalies.”
The discover for “Lysyl oxidase is essential for hypoxia-induced metastasis” reads:
We, the authors, are retracting this Article owing to points which have come to our consideration relating to determine meeting and information availability. Image evaluation of the info has confirmed a number of picture anomalies in Fig. 4c, Supplementary Figs. 1a, e and 4a. Nature has knowledgeable us that the standard and integrity of these photos aren’t in keeping with journal insurance policies. In specific, the panels affected embody Supplementary Fig. 4a, which demonstrates that the shRNA assemble used within the manuscript induces a discount of LOX protein. No authentic information can be found for the affected panels or different information included within the manuscript. We imagine that the important thing findings of the paper are nonetheless legitimate as replicated by others. However, given the problems described above and the absence of authentic information, now we have concluded that essentially the most acceptable course of motion is to retract the Article. All authors agree with the Retraction.
Comments concerning the paper first appeared on PubPeer in 2015. Over the following years first creator Janine Erler’s ex-husband Rune Linding, additionally a scientist, and a colleague of Linding’s commissioned impartial analyses of the pictures within the papers. Those analyses discovered potential duplications and splicing, as we reported in 2018.
The paper has been cited 960 instances, in line with Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, and 62 of these citing papers had been designated “highly cited papers.” Of the 960 citations, 134 appeared since March 2018.
Asked to remark on the retraction, first creator Erler, now of the University of Copenhagen, despatched us the next remark, writing that “You may use the following quote in full – I do not agree to partial use.”
As acknowledged within the retraction textual content, Nature knowledgeable us that some of the pictures within the paper weren’t in keeping with their insurance policies. Due to the age of the paper, we lacked the unique information and due to this fact felt the suitable motion was to retract the paper. The paper is extremely cited (961 citations) and the findings extremely reproduced by different researchers. We due to this fact stand by the scientific findings. Importantly, this paper had nothing to do with the event, testing or scientific trials of the LOXL2 focusing on antibody Simtuzumab.
The paper was one of greater than 400 references cited in a patent utility to develop inhibitors of enzyme lysyl oxidase (LOX) enzymes to stop and deal with cancer metastases. Gilead deserted that method in 2016 after failed trials. But Steven D. Nathan, director of the Advanced Lung Disease Program and director of the Lung Transplant Program at Inova Fairfax Hospital, informed us in 2018 that he “highly doubt[ed] the company developed this based on one study. I think it probably would have been developed anyway.”
In 2018, Nature informed us that it was “following an established process to investigate the issues” however couldn’t remark on the continuing investigation. We requested Nature why it was taking motion now. A spokesperson informed us:
In basic, every time considerations are raised about papers now we have revealed, whether or not by the unique authors or by different researchers and readers, we glance into them fastidiously, following a longtime course of, consulting the authors and, the place acceptable, searching for recommendation from peer reviewers and different exterior specialists. Once this course of has concluded and now we have the mandatory info to make an knowledgeable determination, we’ll observe up with the response that’s most acceptable with a purpose to keep the accuracy of the scientific document. These points are sometimes complicated, nonetheless, and in consequence, it might take time for editors and authors to totally unravel them.
The editors had been made conscious of considerations relating to this text (1). An inner overview by the editors decided that lanes 2–four of the pSMAD2 Western blot picture in Supplementary Fig. S3C are an identical to the LOX Western blot picture in Supplementary Fig. S3D.
Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to help our work, observe us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our each day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you possibly can tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, e mail us at email@example.com.