Advertisement
Sino Biological
Sino Biological

Proteinaceous Cassava Lacks Protein

A PLOS ONE study claiming to have jacked up the essential crop with a gene to allow the plant to produce protein is retracted.

By | September 19, 2012

image: Proteinaceous Cassava Lacks Protein Unprocessed cassava rootsWikimedia Commons, David Monniaux

Cassava, the starchy root vegetable that serves as a dietary staple to millions of people around the world, has not gotten even better, as reported last January by Claude Fauquet of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center and colleagues. The PLOS ONE study—which described a genetically modified cassava plant that expressed the zeolin gene for a nutritional protein—has been retracted, Retraction Watch reported.

“The authors have been unable to confirm the presence of the zeolin gene within the transgenic cassava plants in several subsequent studies,” the retraction notice read. “Additionally, the Committee on Research Integrity at Donald Danforth Plant Science Center has carried out an institutional investigation which revealed that significant amounts of data and supporting documentation that were claimed to be produced by the first author could not be found.”

The study, which has been cited five times, according to ISI, was part of a Gates Foundation-funded program aimed at developing more nutritious cassava crops. Fauquet first learned of the problems shortly after publication, as his lab tried to replicate the results, and brought them to the attention of Danforth president James Carrington. Specifically, the genes for two zeolin proteins did not appear to be expressed, as had been reported in the paper.

“The transgenic plants that were supposed to contain those transgenes, plants labeled as such, did not contain what those plasmids were supposed to contain,” Carrington told Retraction Watch. “In the re-analysis, both the plasmids and the transgenic materials were found to be lacking the key genes.”

The internal investigation “could not come to conclusive proof about how the data were generated,” Carrington added, but he did note that first author Mohammad Abhary had already left the Danforth Center by the time any questions arose, and the institution is continuing to look into Abhary’s work. “I cannot say there will never be any revelations in the future related to things during his time in the Fauquet lab.”

(Hat tip to GenomeWeb.)

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: steinp2

steinp2

Posts: 33

September 19, 2012

And they say scientists aren't creative!

He got the money, so he had to "produce" something.

Paul Stein

Avatar of: Robin Hood

Robin Hood

Posts: 2

September 20, 2012

They try top put the blame on the first author (student), is there not someone at Danforth or Bill Gates supposed to take part of the blame ...

Avatar of: Ed Rybicki

Ed Rybicki

Posts: 82

September 21, 2012

Just another casualty of the "publish or perish" and produce-at-all-costs mentality that pervades US (and other) postdoctoral science. Oh, and possibly of the rather flexible ethics that pervade certain sectors of our scientific world....

Avatar of: Robin Hood

Robin Hood

Posts: 2

September 25, 2012

... and we all know how flexible they are ...

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement
Life Technologies