Nucleic Acids Research, Volume 33, Issue 14, 1 August 2005, Pages 4379–4394, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gki751
The Editors were alerted in 2013 that the blots depicted in several figures show unusual levels of similarity. The journal investigated the matter at the time and did not find conclusive evidence to support the allegations. The same allegations were brought to the Editors’ attention again in 2021. As the original data are no longer available, the Editors reported the matter to the authors’ institutions for internal investigation.
The allegations are summarised below.
Figure 1A
actin panel: similar to actin panel in figure 2A.
The authors confirm that actin panels shown in figures 1A and 2A derive from the same experiment, however, to better clarify the flow of the experimental plan in the paper, they used the data to assemble two independent figures (i.e. Figs 1A and 2A).
Figure 2C
nucleus panel: lane 7 is different in shape and saturation, and definition.
actin panel: band in lane 7 has a vertical, near straight left edge.
The original films and images are no longer available, and the authors cannot double-check the outcome of this experiment.
Figure 3A
cytoplasm panel: lane 9 is similar to figure 4B lane 5.
nucleus panel: lanes 9–10 are similar to figure 4B lanes 5–6.
-
actin panel
∘ lanes 1–3 are similar to lanes 6–8.
∘ lanes 9–10 are similar to figure 4B lanes 5–6 and figure 4D lanes 1–2
Figure 3B
actin panel: lanes 1 and 2 are similar to lanes 3 and 4.
The authors confirm that the APE/Ref-1 bands in both cytoplasm and nucleus panels as well as the actin bands in Figure 4B lanes 5 and 6 are indeed the same as those reported in Figure 4D (lanes 1 and 2) and in Figure 3A (lanes 9 and 10). These panels were included in multiple figures as a reference and the treatment indicated is the same in all figures where these panels are shown [CHX (15 μg/ml) and ATP (100 μM), 10 min].
Figure 5B
vertical changes in background between lanes 5, 6 and 7.
The authors have provided another contemporary bandshift experiment in which they showed the same effects of BAPTA and DPI on AP1 binding activity as the one reported in the article.
The institutional report concludes:
‘In light of the site visit, the study of the work and of the rules that scientific journals had at the time of the publication of the article, of the repetition of the experiments ‘under investigation’, the commission unanimously believes that there has been no alteration of the figures or the published results, as amply demonstrated by the repetition of the experiments with the same reagents and protocols and by how the scientific community, based on the published data in the NAR paper under investigation in this report, was able to progress in the study of the APE1 protein without detecting any conflicting data.’
In conclusion, in the absence of original data, the Editors cannot conclusively confirm whether or not the results and conclusions presented in the article are affected. The Editors, therefore, advise readers to examine the details of this study with care.
Julian E. Sale and Barry L. Stoddard
Senior Executive Editors