On defense. said Shoukhrat Mitalipov errors in the cloning paper invalidate the results
Oregon Health & Science University.
One day after a prominent paper in the journal Cell was reported for image duplication, the lead author and the newspaper say that problems arose from the simple mislabeling images and do not invalidate the results. They also defended the exceptionally fast examination paper, which was accepted only 4 days after the official presentation and published online 12 days later.
The work, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov Research Center of the Oregon National Primate in Beaverton, was marked by two reasons: It is the first time anyone has used cloning to create embryonic stem human personalized (ES) cells, and it is the same result that was described in 04 and 05 by a group of south Korean scientists in what is proving to be one of the most famous cases in the world of scientific fraud .
scientists stem cells were first delighted, with a developer Science that the work was a "hard-won victory after years of painstaking research." After a commentator posted on a site called PubPeer alleging duplicate images and mislabeled in the paper, joy turned to dismay. "It is unfortunate that this important area of research has come once again under control," wrote Kevin Eggan of Harvard University Science Insider in an email.
talked Mitalipov with Science Insider this afternoon and said he and the other co-authors simply neglected mistakes, partly because the images in question are intended to show that the cells are similar. "with the naked eye, it is very difficult to see if the same image or a different image." He said he is curious to know if the contributor PubPeer used the image control software to catch duplication. "I wish we had this software to run the paper through," he said.
The first series of duplications has three digits. The images are intended to show that ES cells from ' cloned embryos resemble those from IVF embryos, suggesting cloned ES cells are the real thing, but the same image seems to appear twice under a different label. once as an ES cell line derived from a cloned embryo, and elsewhere in the paper as a line of control ES cells from an embryo in vitro fertilization. another image in the same set, Figure 6, appears as a cloned cell line but also shows in an additional figure called the command line. Mitalipov, who spoke with Science Insider this afternoon, said the first author Masahito Tachibana deliberately used the images twice, but accidentally knocked the labels in Figure 6.
the second duplication appears in the supplementary Figure S6, where a cloud purporting to show similarities gene expression between cell lines was used twice. Mitalipov said the bad scatterplot was used, and the good will be published in an erratum. original microarray data are publicly available, he notes.
Mitalipov argued that the main evidence that the cell lines are derived from embryos cloned really are not affected by these errors. The most important is whether the mitochondrial DNA of ES cells matches that of the egg cell donor and the nuclear DNA is the cell that has been cloned. The researchers deliberately chose a cell line widely available for their experiments, Mitalipov said, making it easy for laboratories outside to try to confirm the results. He says he is ready to ship the ES cell lines cloned in several laboratories that have requested them, as soon as the signs of Oregon's institutional review board off of transfers, which could occur in a case days. (Restrictions prohibit federal funding of the National Institutes of Health funded laboratories working on cells because they were obtained through cloning, so that recipients must also show that they have a legal place to work with cell lines .)
cell , meanwhile, sought to defend. Newspaper editors have refused to speak with Science , but the spokesperson Mary Beth O'Leary issued a statement, noting that "it seems there were a few errors made by the authors . ... We do not believe the impact of these scientific results mistakes of the paper in any way. "
Several experts say stem cells Science Insider that the images in question are no keys to the conclusions of the paper. However, Eggan writes, "we will probably have to wait until the cell lines in question are validated by others, or reproduces the independent group [cloned ES cell] before we find know for sure. " Dieter Egli of the New York Stem Cell Foundation in New York said Science Insider that he and his colleagues are already working to reproduce the allegations Mitalipov.
Cell was not able to answer a key question before our deadline: What was the rush in securing the paper? He had an exceptionally fast turnaround, filed April 30 and accepted on May 3 "Reviewers have graciously agreed to give priority attention to examine the document in a timely manner" Cell of statement read. "It is a false statement to assimilate review by the slow peers with rigor or discipline, or use review by the timely peers to justify negligence in preparing the manuscript."
In a story by Nature Mitalipov seemed to imply that he pressed for a quick review because he wanted to present the work at a conference. But this meeting is not until mid-June, and cellular authors has already led to high-profile documents to be published in the newspaper after describing their research at a meeting.
Mitalipov said ScienceInsider that even if he mentioned the conference when he presented the document, it was not the reason for quick review or competition from another group. he says he first sent the paper to the newspaper "5 or 6 days' before April 30, the official date of submission as part of an investigation prior to approval. After Cell publishers have expressed interest, he said, he officially introduced through the website on 30 April. He said the review simply asked reviewers to look at the paper quickly, "and they did it in a day." The examiners had minor criticisms, he said, the authors were able to respond quickly. cell may have been worried about the news of the flight of paper, he says, which may have prompted the online publication shortly after acceptance. the document should be published in the June 6 printed edition of the journal.
Tachibana is "devastated" by the errors, said Mitalipov. However, the lead researcher is confident that the results will soon be confirmed. "We have the cell lines. We can show that the mitochondrial data [DNA] is, and that nuclear data, "said Mitalipov. He and his co-authors are now combing through "every point" in the paper to make sure it is no more unknown errors before submitting a formal correction.
0 Komentar