VOLUME 283 (2007) PAGES 1545–1552
This article has been withdrawn by Praveen Bhoopathi, Chandramu Chetty, Sateesh Kunigal, and Sajani S. Lakka upon request by the Journal. Sravan K. Vanamala and Jasti S. Rao could not be reached. The Journal states that in Fig. 2A, the ERK immunoblot contains a splice and the pERK immunoblot was inappropriately manipulated. Fig. 2C was inappropriately manipulated. Lanes 1–4 of the GAPDH immunoblot from Fig. 3A were reused in lanes 1–4 of the GAPDH immunoblot in Fig. 3C. Lane 5 of the GAPDH immunoblot from Fig. 3A was reused in lane 7 of the same immunoblot and in lane 5 of the GAPDH immunoblot from Fig. 3C. Lane 6 of the GAPDH immunoblot from Fig. 3A was reused in lane 8 of the same immunoblot and in lanes 6 and 7 of the GAPDH immunoblot from Fig. 3C. Lanes 5 and 7 of the pERK immunoblot from Fig. 3C are the same. Fig. 4A was inappropriately manipulated. In Fig. 4C, the first two lanes of the pERK immunoblot are the same. Both immunoblots in this figure were inappropriately manipulated. In Fig. 4D, the upper and lower bands in lane 3 of the cleaved caspase 3 immunoblot are the same. Also in Fig. 4D, the pERK bands in lanes 1 and 2 are the same. In Fig. 5A, lanes 3 and 7 of the pERK immunoblot are the same. Both immunoblots in this figure panel were inappropriately manipulated. The withdrawing authors were not able to locate the original data, but the withdrawing authors state that they were able to locate some of the supporting data and sent it to the Journal. The withdrawing authors offered to repeat the experiments and replace the data. However, the Journal declined these offers, in line with its policies. The withdrawing authors stand by the experimental data and conclusions and strongly disagree with the Journal's analysis and statement regarding duplication and reuse of the same bands. The withdrawing authors also state that they have not “intentionally manipulated” any of the data and are opposed to the use of the phrase, and they have agreed to withdraw the article as they were not able to retrieve the original data because the manuscript was 12 years old. The withdrawing authors state that the immunoblots were not inappropriately manipulated, but some background dirt might have been removed digitally from a scan of film produced with techniques dated by 12 years. In the withdrawing authors' opinion, the questions raised by the Journal do not undermine the scientific value of their article.