“Technical but fundamental errors” lead to retraction of brain tumor paper

The journal Neuro-Oncology has retracted a 2011 paper by a group of researchers in Japan who had purported to find a genetic mechanism for how fluorescence can be used to diagnose certain brain tumors.

The paper, “Enhanced expression of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in malignant brain tumors: CPOX expression and 5-ALA–induced fluorescence,” reported measurements using quantitative real-time (qRT)-PCR.

As the retraction notice explains:

Scientists doing the right thing: Malfunctioning lab equipment leads to retraction of neuroscience paper

For the second time inside of a week, we come to praise scientists who did the right thing when they realized their lab equipment or reagents weren’t performing as expected.

Here’s the retraction of a 2011 paper in Cerebral Cortex:

Environmental scientists call for retraction of oil industry-funded paper on benzene exposure

A paper suggesting that scientists may want to rethink what levels of benzene are carcinogenic has led to a sharp exchange in the journal that originally published it.

In 2006, Stephen Rappaport, of UNC-Chapel Hill, and colleagues, published a paper that began by saying that benzene

is an important industrial chemical that is also emitted into the air from gasoline, engine exhausts and combustion of organic materials (including cigarette smoke) (1,2). Occupational exposures to benzene at air levels greater than ∼10 p.p.m., have long been linked to hematotoxicity and to acute myelogenous leukemia (3–5). A recent report of hematotoxic effects in workers exposed to benzene <1 p.p.m. (6) has raised additional concerns regarding the health consequences of low exposures to this contaminant.

The authors conclude:

Study of blood pressure drug valsartan retracted

Hiroaki Matsubara, a prominent cardiologist with five Expressions of Concern and two retractions for his CV, has another retraction.

As Larry Husten, who first reported the retraction at Forbes, notes, the notice for 2009′s “Effects of valsartan on morbidity and mortality in uncontrolled hypertensive patients with high cardiovascular risks: KYOTO HEART Study,” which appeared in the European Heart Journal, says very little:

Royal jelly figure flushed: Author removes figure from 2002 paper

Royal jelly — “the goo that sustains honeybees destined for royalty” and is touted dubiously for everything “from youthful skin to virility,” as Nature put it — is apparently a hot research topic. So when a Retraction Watch tipster sent us a corrigendum that seemed to have done something we hadn’t seen before — retract a single figure, without saying why — we figured we’d check it out.

Here’s the text of the corrigendum:

ORI investigating University of Florida ob-gyn researcher accused of misconduct

A prominent researcher at the University of Florida is under federal investigation for research misconduct and has lost at least one paper as a result of the fraud.

The researcher, Nasser Chegini, was a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the U of Florida until about six months ago, when he retired, according to the chair’s office. Nasser has received at least $4 million in federal grant funding, according to the university.

The retracted paper, “MicroRNA 21: response to hormonal therapies and regulatory function in leiomyoma, transformed leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma cells,” was published in 2010 by Molecular Human Reproduction. The authors were Qun Pan and Xiaoping Luo and Chegini.

As the notice explains:

Authors retract prostate cancer-grape seed compound paper for figure presentation error

University of Alabama researchers have retracted a paper claiming that a grape skin seed compound might have anti-prostate cancer effects.

Here’s the notice for “Proanthocyanidins from grape seeds inhibit expression of matrix metalloproteinases in human prostate carcinoma cells, which is associated with the inhibition of activation of MAPK and NFκB”:

Family Practice affair: Diabetes paper pulled for redundancy, which journal calls “honest error”

Family Practice has retracted a 2009 review article on diabetes whose author had published a similar — in spots identical — paper two years earlier in another journal. We think the notice is nine-tenths solid, but there’s a part at the end that raises an important question about how much, or little, editors should do to accommodate the embarrassments of their authors.

The notice:

Fireworks: Belgian dispute over ovarian transplant findings includes claims of theft, arson

There’s a story brewing in Belgium that is, as one local newspaper put it, worthy of a TV drama.

Here’s our attempt at a summary: Jacques Donnez, chair of Catholic University of Louvain’s (UCL) gynecology department, and colleagues published two studies in Human Reproduction in 2010. One study claimed to show that a woman had given birth after undergoing chemotherapy for severe sickle cell disease and then getting an ovarian transplant from her sister.

The other of those studies, the authors noted, confirmed “data published earlier as a case report” in 2007. That case report of a woman with another type of anemia — the pregnancy only went as far as an embryo, which did not survive — garnered a good deal of attention, because, as New Scientist reported:

Tell-tale hearts: Cardiology journals retract redundant articles

The European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery has retracted a 2007 article by Chinese researchers after the senior author decided he liked the data so nice he’d publish them twice. And he appears to have done so without the knowledge of the corresponding author.

Here’s the notice for the paper, titled “Open-heart surgery in patients with liver cirrhosis”: