A 2014 article in Science by a Toronto laboratory was retracted after a month of December expression of concern raised “potential data integrity issues.”
The newspaper, “Mitosis inhibits repair of DNA double-strand breaks to guard against telomere fusions”, comes from laboratory of Daniel Durocherprofessor of molecular genetics at the University of Toronto.
The retraction notice, published today and signed by all the original authors, reads in part:
We have since become aware of anomalies in Figure 1 of the main article and in Figs. S3, S7, S9, and S11 in Supplementary Material. Due to these issues, Science issued an editorial expression of concern regarding the report on December 5, 2024 (2). We work with our institution to determine the basis of the problems. However, due to the scale and severity of the irregularities in the data and images, we have decided to remove the document.
The article has been cited 258 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. As we previously reported, both newspapers are among several from Durocher’s lab that have been flagged for potentially duplicate images.
Meagan Phelan, director of communications for ScienceDurocher and colleagues are still evaluating the paper in cooperation with the Sinai Health Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute said in an email. “However, due to the scale and severity of the irregularities in the data and images as they have already discovered them, the authors have decided to retract the paper now, for which we commend them and are grateful ‘Okay,’ she told us.
Sholto David, who uses the name “Mycosphaerella arachidis” on PubPeer, flagged the potential duplication of the image in a November 2024 report. comment. He called the groups in the images “strikingly similar.”
Like us reported in early December, the 2014 journal was one of two Science who received an expression of concern. A 2007 paper, “Orchestration of the DNA-Damage Response by the RNF8 Ubiquitin Ligase,” featured a “duplicate image in the 3D figure,” according to the notice. This article has been cited more than 700 times, according to Web of Science.
Phelan told us the journal was “working with the authors to replicate the experiment” before considering a retraction.
Durocher did not respond directly to our request for comment. After we contacted him, Jovana Drinjakovic, head of scientific communications at the Sinai Health Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, sent us the same email we received in December after both journals received expressions of worry:
Although the 2007 paper has a numerical error that the authors are working to correct, the 2014 paper contains irregularities in the data. As soon as the lead author became aware of the irregularities related to the 2014 study, he immediately notified Sinai Health. This triggered an internal investigation, in accordance with its policy on handling allegations of research misconduct.
Durocher responded on PubPeer discussions for the article from 2007 and the article 2014 that his laboratory would examine the irregularities.
Like the retractable watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our workFollow us on Twitterlike us on Facebookadd us to your RSS readeror subscribe to our daily summary. If you find a retraction, it is not in our databaseyou can let us know here. For feedback or feedback, email us at (email protected).
Treatment…
Success! You are on the list.
Oops ! An error occurred and we were unable to process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.