Editor's note to ‘phospho-epitope binding by the BRCT domains of hPTIP controls multiple aspects of the cellular response to DNA damage’

Nucleic Acids Research, Volume 35, Issue 16, 15 August 2007, Pages 5312–5322, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm493

This note relates to various allegations and concerns regarding figure preparation of this published article.

In 2017, the Editors were alerted that the blots depicted in Figure 6C show unusual levels of similarity. Those concerns are summarised below.

• Chk2 panel: SCR – and hPTIP WT bands are similar

• BRCA1 pSer1524 panels: SCR – and hPTIP WT bands 15 to 120 are similar

• BRAC1 panel: hPTIP WT bands 0–15 and hPTIP R910Q bands 60–120 are similar

The journal investigated the matter at that time and did not find evidence to support the claims. The Research Integrity Committee at the author's institution also investigated this figure in 2017. Their investigation concluded that although some parts of the blots in Figure 6C were similar, there was no evidence of duplication or inappropriate image manipulation. The authors have since advised that precast (commercial) protein gels run in the same tank on the same day and then subjected to blotting with certain antibodies can sometimes produce blots that are so similar it can be very difficult to tell them apart. The authors have provided a contemporaneous repeat of the same experiment which demonstrates similar results in Supplementary Figure 1. Supplementary Figure 2 shows the original figure with dividing lines indicating the boundaries of the individual blots.

In 2022, not only did the concerns about Figure 6C resurface but also the Editors were alerted to an additional concern about Figure 4C. That new concern is summarized below.

• A-53BP1 Low Exposure panel: W676A and Pair C2 bands are similar.

The authors recently acknowledged that Figure 4C is a composite image of separate blots. Supplementary Figure 3 shows the original data and the original figure with dividing lines indicating the boundaries of the individual blots.

Additionally, the authors recently disclosed that Figures 2C and 6A are also composite images. Supplementary Figure 4 shows the original data and the original Figure 2C with dividing lines indicating the boundaries of individual blots.

The original data for Figure 6A is not available. Supplementary Figure 2 shows the original figure with dividing lines indicating the boundaries of the individual blots.

In the absence of original data, the Editors advise readers to examine Figure 6A and 6C with care.

Julian E. Sale and Barry L. Stoddard

Senior Executive Editors

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Supplementary Data are available at NAR Online.