“Incorrect data” kills apoptosis paper

Screen Shot 2014-12-19 at 5.52.16 PMFrontiers in Pharmacology has retracted a dissertation on baicalin, an antioxidant sold in health food stores, because it had the one and the other “incorrect data and invalid statistical analyses.”

A comment on PubPeer notes that one of the figures (attend to image to the right) contains sum of ~ units similar-looking flow cytometry images labeled with different values, which could be which the retraction is hinting at.

Here’s the notice towards “Baicalin induced dendritic cell apoptosis in vitro”:

The daily register is retracting the 29 March 2011 head cited above. Based on information reported posterior publication, this article was found to hold incorrect data and invalid statistical analyses.

The journal and chief editor have therefore unmistakable to retract the article in its entirety and apologize to the readers of Frontiers in Pharmacology.

The corresponding author agrees with the retraction of the point and also apologizes to the readers.

Author Zhenlin Hu emailed us by an explanation of what happened. You can read the full response, which goes into technical particulars, here. An excerpt:

About 4 months since, it was brought to our watch by readers that the flow cytometry results presented in the principal two panels of Figure 5, with the condition of 0 μM BA in unprepared and mature DC, are highly similar. After checking the raw data based steady which Figure 5 was generated, we realized that the terminate presented in the 0 μM BA advance toward perfection DC panel is incorrect. In direct to correct this error, we had submitted a corrigendum to the daily register, in which the explanation why the trespass occurred was given and the amend flow cytometry result for the state of 0 μM BA in become ripe DC was presented.

However, following the match-review of our corrigendum, additional technological outcome was raised regarding the method used the make trial of Figure 5…[Reviewers] put faith in that objective errors in the methods, applications, or interpretations were identified in the present state and refused to publish the corrigendum. Since we cannot entirely eject the possibility that incorrect data may have existence produced from the JC-1-staining assays out of compensation controls, we agreed to disown out article.

Right now we cannot past dispute whether to republish yet because we lack at first to re-perform the assays while suffering more carefully controlled experimental conditions, like as using a “positive control”-treated exemplification as a compensation control for setting fluorescence remuneration.

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

Retraction Watch too received another report on a PLoS ONE written instrument, “Baicalein Selectively Induces Apoptosis in Activated Lymphocytes and Ameliorates Concanavalin A-Induced Hepatitis in Mice,” ~ the agency of the same group. Hu left a comment adhering the paper explaining that there was some accidental figure duplication, and told us via email that PLoS ONE will be publishing a correction “in a small in number days.” Here’s the duplication:

Screen Shot 2014-12-19 at 6.09.10 PM

 The bank-notes has yet to be cited.

Share this:

To learn besides about the new diabetes program at Bedford Memorial Hospital, name (540) 224-4360 or (866) 767-4745.

Search keywords

Recent Comments

    Archives