A newly developed search tool called a table Reactome, which aroused widespread interest biologists, is under intense fire by the scientists who say the description of the device in the October issue 9 of science includes reactions "impossible" chemical and makes little sense. The publication drew immediate attention because the table promises to set the functions of a myriad of enzymes and probing the metabolism of bacteria and other cell types.
Last week Science recognized rage, the online publication of an "Editorial Expression of Concern" in which, notes the editor of the magazine, Bruce Alberts that "serious questions have been raised about the methods and data presented." "It was so obvious that the chemistry was flawed," said biochemist Laura Kiessling of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, editor of ACS Chemical Biology .
While acknowledging serious mistakes in the description of methods used to create the chart Reactome - which required the synthesis of thousands of compounds representing cellular metabolites and other enzyme substrates, connecting them to a fluorescent dye, and set them on a glass slide - corresponding author of the study stand behind the camera. "We are confident in the results and technology. Many researchers have used the table without problems, "says Manuel Ferrer Institute (CSIC) Spanish National Research Council of Catalysis in Madrid.
According to Ferrer, at the request of Science, CSIC will investigate his laboratory and investigation will take place in the laboratories of collaborators in Germany and the UK. He says the Nobel prize Richard Roberts of New England Biolabs and other researchers have also agreed to carry out blind tests to verify that the network operates Reactome. Roberts confirmed this, noting that he recently visited the laboratory in Madrid and came away "impressed" after first thought Reactome Table "was too good to be true."
In private conversations and online postings, chemists began to express skepticism about the range Reactome soon as it describes it was published, noting several significant errors in the initial figure representing its creation . Some also wondered how a relatively unknown group have synthesized many complex compounds. Dismay increased when the additional line hardware providing additional information on the synthesized compounds was not available as promised. "We failed to put in the time. The data is quite large," said co-corresponding author Peter Golyshin the University of Bangor in Wales, a microbiologist whose team included bacterial samples analyzed by the laboratory Ferrer.
Science has also come under fire. "It was great no taken examiner [the errors]," says Kiessling Ferrer said that the reviewers of the paper has not raised major questions about the chemical synthesis methods described,. Chief editor of the magazine, Monica Bradford, recognized none of the lead reviewers of the paper was an organic chemist synthesis. "We do not have evidence of fraud or workmanship. We are concerned about the inconsistencies and asked the institutions of the authors to try to sort all this by examining data and laboratory original notes, "she said.
Ferrer said he assumes responsibility for all errors and apologizes. "I understand the disappointment of science and science readers" Yet some chemists, including those who have requested clarification from authors are not convinced by additional data that has since been displayed and explanations offered so far. many colleagues "think it must be fraud. I'm trying to keep an open mind, "says chemical biologist Ben Davis of the University of Oxford, UK, who wrote a skeptical critical section table Reactome ( registration or subscription required ) of the Faculty of 1000 Web site. "But it is clear that there are many unexplained elements."
0 Komentar