Science Raises Concerns Over Two Papers in Toronto Sinai Health Investigation – Retraction Watch

Science expressed concern about two articles in the laboratory of Daniel Durocherprofessor of molecular genetics at the University of Toronto.

Reviews and two other editor’s notes on Nature articles, follow PubPeer comments on several articles by Durocher highlighting potentially duplicate images, such as described by ForBetterScience. Durocher responded to many comments promising to look into these issues.

In addition to his academic positions at Toronto and the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Sinai Health, Durocher co-founded Repair therapeutic productsa biotechnology company that has five ongoing clinical trials for potential cancer treatments.

Both Science items, “Mitosis inhibits repair of DNA double-strand breaks to guard against telomere fusions» of 2014, and “Orchestration of the DNA damage response by the ubiquitin ligase RNF8“, dating from 2007, have been cited together nearly 1,000 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

In an email to Retraction Watch, Jovana Drinjakovic, head of science communications at Sinai Health’s Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, confirmed that the institution was investigating the 2014 article:

We recognize that the newspaper Science plans to publish an editorial expression of concern regarding two studies published in 2007 and 2014. Although the 2007 article has a numerical error that the authors are working to correct, the 2014 article 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.

We received Drinjakovic’s email after contacting Durocher for comment.

“The lead author is currently in discussions with the journal about next steps,” Drinjakovic said, referring to Durocher. “It would be inappropriate to comment further on this matter until the internal process is complete.”

In April 2021an anonymous PubPeer user commented on the 2007 article, identifying microscopy images “more similar than expected” in a single figure. Durocher responded the same month, agreeing with the observation and stating that he would “search for the original timelapse film and correct it if necessary.”

THE expression of concern because the article says:

The authors informed the editors of a duplicate image in the 3D figure. We are alerting readers to this concern while we work with the authors to determine an appropriate correction to the article.

Stephen P. Jackson, of the University of Cambridge, England, and penultimate author of the paper, previously removed items Since Cell, NatureAnd Science.

Last month, scientific detective Sholto David, who uses the PubPeer handle “Mycosphaerella arachidis,” pointed out potential duplications in six figures of the report. 2014 Science article. Durocher replied:

Thank you for raising these questions. They are taken seriously. I have alerted my institute director of the irregularities noted and they will be investigated.

THE expression of concern states:

Editors and authors have been made aware of potential data integrity issues in several figures. We are alerting readers to this concern while we work with the institution and authors to determine an appropriate course of action.

David told Retraction Watch that the notice “should just be a retraction.” He called the paper “very confusing” and its data “largely manipulated.”

Meagan Phelan, director of communications for Science family of reviews, confirmed that PubPeer “was among the impulses” for reviews. She added:

The authors were quick and thorough in responding to us and addressing related questions. We see more and more authors working quickly and thoughtfully to correct the facts in this way, and it continues to encourage us.

November 21 Nature added editor’s notes to two of Durocher’s articles, “A mechanism for suppressing homologous recombination in G1 cells”, from 2015, and “53BP1 is a reader of the DNA damage-induced H2A Lys 15 ubiquitin mark», from 2013. The articles have been cited nearly 900 times. Both notices state:

Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of the data presented in this article. Further editorial action will be taken, as appropriate, once the investigation of concerns has been completed and all parties have had the opportunity to respond in full.

David also in November commented on the Nature studies with questions about the data. Durocher and the first author of one of the articles responded promising to look into the questions.

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).

Related