Abstract
RETRACTION: L. Ramírez Gonzales, L. Shi, S. Bergonzi Bergonzi, M. Oortwijn, J. M. Franco‐Zorrilla, R. Solano‐Tavira, R. G. F. Visser, J. A. Abelenda, C. W. B. Bachem, “Potato CYCLING DOF FACTOR 1 and its lncRNA Counterpart StFLORE Link Tuber Development and Drought Response,” The Plant Journal 105, no. 4 (2021): 855–869. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.15093.
The above article, published online on 21 November 2020, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors; the journal Editor‐in‐Chief, Katherine Denby; Society for Experimental Biology (SEB); and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The authors reported that they had discovered errors in the 35S:StFORE construct which compromise the conclusions. The authors have also not been able to repeat the anti‐phasic expression profile of the StFLORE IncRNA transcript following numerous independent experiments post‐publication. While the authors confirmed that other data reported in the article remain valid, all parties agree that the concerns listed fundamentally compromise the conclusions reported in the article, which necessitates retraction.
RETRACTION: L. Ramírez Gonzales, L. Shi, S. Bergonzi Bergonzi, M. Oortwijn, J. M. Franco‐Zorrilla, R. Solano‐Tavira, R. G. F. Visser, J. A. Abelenda, C. W. B. Bachem, “Potato CYCLING DOF FACTOR 1 and its lncRNA Counterpart StFLORE Link Tuber Development and Drought Response,” The Plant Journal 105, no. 4 (2021): 855–869. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.15093.
The above article, published online on 21 November 2020, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors; the journal Editor‐in‐Chief, Katherine Denby; Society for Experimental Biology (SEB); and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The authors reported that they had discovered errors in the 35S:StFORE construct which compromise the conclusions. The authors have also not been able to repeat the anti‐phasic expression profile of the StFLORE IncRNA transcript following numerous independent experiments post‐publication. While the authors confirmed that other data reported in the article remain valid, all parties agree that the concerns listed fundamentally compromise the conclusions reported in the article, which necessitates retraction.