A retraction with “serious consequences to wheat production”

Chinese researchers have had a 2012 paper in Plant Molecular Biology Reporter on genetically modified wheat retracted, in a notice that cites fraud.

The article, “Isolation and Functional Characterization of an Antifreeze Protein Gene, TaAFPIII, from Wheat (Triticum aestivum),” came from the same group we wrote about in April 2012 when they retracted a paper from Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica, also about genetically altered wheat.

At the time, the authors said they were pulling the other paper because they were having trouble replicating their findings. That now seems accurate, but not entirely complete.

As the new retraction notice states:

Spud dud, as agricultural industry potato paper gets pulled a decade after publication

Plant Physiology, the official journal of the American Society of Plant Biologists, has retracted a 2004 article by a team of ag industry researchers, including a former husband-wife duo, for what could be misconduct by the husband.

The retraction notice is vague enough, however, that we’re not entirely sure what went wrong, and no one wants to help us confirm — or even attempted to disprove — our inferences.

Hefty correction in JBC for GMO researchers in image tampering case

Last November we wrote about the case of Alejandra Bravo and Mario Soberón, a wife-husband team of microbiologists studying genetically modified crops, who had been disciplined by the National Autonomous University of Mexico for having manipulated images in 11 papers.

The tinkering did not rise to the level of fraud, according to the university — which perhaps helps explain why it didn’t lead to requests for retractions, according to Soberón.  Instead, he said at the time, at least seven journals would be issuing corrections. We now have what appears to be the first of these, in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Paper with “missing or placed wrongly” controls retracted because there’s “no editorial mechanism to review the errors”

Two researchers from Singapore are retracting a paper that included errors in three figures because there’s apparently no way to fix the mistakes and have the new work reviewed.

Here’s the notice for “Host-dependent effects of the 3′ untranslated region of turnip crinkle virus RNA on accumulation in Hibiscus and Arabidopsis,” by Weimin Li and Sek-Man Wong of National University of Singapore and Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory:

Proteomics paper retracted for plagiarized figure of mysterious origin

The journal Proteomics has retracted a paper for a plagiarized figure — but how the authors came to possess the image in the first place remains a mystery.

Here’s the notice:

Forbidden fruit: duplication of mango paper forces retraction

Here’s some friendly advice. If you’re going to publish a paper titled “In Vitro Studies for Resistance to Anthracnose Disease (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penz.) in Different Mango Hybrid Seedlings,” make sure the article is in fact, well…different.

The International Journal of Fruit Science, a Taylor & Francis title, has retracted the above paper, by a group from the Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, in Lucknow, India. The reason:

Publisher error leads to retraction, then reinstatement, in agriculture journal

Here’s an odd good news/bad news tale from the pages of Industrial Crops and Products. The journal is reinstating a 2011 paper it mistakenly retracted. But, it’s retracting another article from the same author, who tried to grow two peas in the same pod (or something like that).

According to the retraction notice:

“Some sentences…are directly taken from other papers, which could be viewed as a form of plagiarism”

Plant Physiology and Biochemistry as an amusing retraction notice this month that underscores the perils of allowing authors to come up with their own statements.

The paper, “Molecular strategies in manipulation of the starch synthesis pathway for improving storage starch content in plants (review and prospect for increasing storage starch synthesis),” came from a group at Sichuan Agricultural University in China — including its Maize Research Institute — and was published in the December 2012 issue.

University disciplines researchers who study toxins used in GMO crops; at least seven corrections to follow

Two biotechnology researchers at the National Autonomous University of Mexico have been disciplined for manipulating images in 11 papers.

La Jornada, one of Mexico City’s largest newspapers, reports that Alejandra Bravo and Mario Soberon, a wife and husband team who study the Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) bacteria toxins used in GMO crops to fight pests,were found guilty of “manipulaciones inapropiadas y categóricamente reprobables” — which translates roughly, according to Google Translate, as “inappropriate and categorically reprehensible manipulation.”

The domino effect: More retractions of papers that cited retracted PLoS ONE GMO cassava study

Last month, we reported on a PLoS ONE paper about genetically modified cassava — or, more correctly, allegedly GMO cassava — that was being retracted because data “could not be found.” We have an update on that story, namely that a paper relying on materials from that lab will be retracted, and that authors of a review that included a figure from the graduate student who claimed to have done the work will retract part of their paper.

As a Retraction Watch commenter on our earlier post noted, referring to Claude Fauquet, the PI of the Danforth Center lab where graduate student Mohammad Abhary worked: