Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Mysterious retraction in the Journal of Biological Chemistry for Takashi Tsuji’s group

with one comment

The authors of a paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) have retracted it, but don’t ask us why.

This being the JBC, the retraction notice for “Human T-cell Leukemia Virus Type I Tax Down-regulates the Expression of Phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-Trisphosphate Inositol Phosphatases via the NF-κB Pathway” is the very definition of opaque:

This article has been withdrawn by the authors.

The paper has been cited 13 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

The corresponding author of the paper, Takashi Tsuji, appears to be a fairly prominent researcher. Last year, he and his colleagues published a study in PLoS ONE in which they showed how a tooth could be grown from stem cells. The paper garnered significant media attention. He also studies hair regeneration.

We’ve contacted Tsuji, and the JBC, for more information, and will update with anything we find out.

Update, 9:30 a.m. Eastern, 1/31/12: See this post for an explanation from Tsuji.

Hat tip: Clare Francis

Advertisement

Written by ivanoransky

January 24, 2012 at 9:30 am

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Some of the blots in Fig 1 have “odd looking seams” under high magnification. Also clear evidence of deletion of material above the main band, in one of the b-actin control blots in panel A.

    Fig 2A blots also have seams.

    Figure 3 A/B the p65 and b-actin blots are the same. These are loading controls for some RTPCR in the graphs below, so conceivably they could have originated from the same sample (but if so, why not just say that and show one set of blots).

    Fig 4C, p65 has been IP’ed from 2 different samples (p300 N and p300deltaN transfected cells) but the p65 westerns are identical – they should not originate from the same sample. The “input” lanes below the p65 are different, so therefore the p65 blots should be too.

    Thus, probably a simple case of the PI finding problems with the images, and withdrawing it to avoid being ordered to do so at a later date.

    Virgilstar

    January 24, 2012 at 10:58 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,497 other followers