Advertisement
Sino Biological
Sino Biological

Errors in Landmark Stem Cell Paper

A study demonstrating the production of human stem cells through cloning contained several mislabeled images, but the authors insist the results are real.

By | May 24, 2013

Shoukhrat MitalipovOREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITYThe team behind a landmark study published last week that reported the creation of human embryonic stem cells via nuclear transfer, or cloning, has admitted that several images in paper were duplicated or mislabeled, but insists the errors do not invalidate the results, reported Nature.

“The results are real, the cell lines are real, everything is real,” Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon Health and Science University, who led the study, told Nature. Mitalipov also explained that the unusually rapid review of the paper, which was accepted 4 days after submission and published just 12 days later, was a result of his eagerness to present the results at a meeting in June.

The research, published in Cell, was the first time stem cells had been generated via nuclear transfer, the same achievement claimed by Korean scientists in 2004 in what turned out to be a notorious case of scientific fraud. So alarm bells were ringing when a day after publication a commenter of the website PubPeer alleged that Mitalipov’s paper contained images that were duplicated or mislabeled.

Mitalipov has conceded that several mistakes were made. For example, one pair of images was meant to show that hESCs from nuclear transfer (NT-hESCs) look similar to those from IVF embryos, to show that the former are the real thing. But the two images were actually identical, the same image printed twice with different captions. A scatterplot image meant to show similarities in gene expression between the two stem cell lines was also used twice.

Mitalipov told ScienceInsider that the errors do not affect the validity of the results. The most important data—which show that NT-hESCs contain mitochondrial DNA that matches that of the egg cells and nuclear DNA that matches that of the donor cell—were unaffected. He said that he is planning to send the cells to other labs, which can confirm the results. “We are not hiding these cell lines,” Mitalipov told Nature.

Nevertheless, many scientists are concerned that the paper was rushed though the review process, especially considering it’s such as controversial field.

“The 4-day review process was obviously inadequate,” Arnold Kriegstein, director of the stem-cell programme at the University of California, San Francisco, told Nature. “It’s a degree of sloppiness that you wouldn’t expect in a paper that was going to have this high profile. One worries if there is more than meets the eye and whether there are other issues with the work that are not as apparent.”

Mitalipov is working with Cell to issue an official correction as soon as possible.

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: FJScientist

FJScientist

Posts: 24

May 24, 2013

They can't even keep track of pictures. We're supposed to ignore that and think that they actually can execute a study with the rigor necessary to make substantiated, reproducible conclusions???

I am perplexed also about the lack of remorse. They somehow think that this is normal and even trivial??? I am dismayed (not by this incident, but in reading papers and submissions) by how far our scientific culture has digressed towards an intellectual and methodologic sloppiness that is absolutely not commensurate with rigorous, scientific conduct. Half the people out there can't even design an experiment to rigorously test a question. Another half doesn't even know what an independent study is and how many they need to do to substantiate their conclusions. Now we see that some can't even keep their notebooks straight to present the proper data to justify their conclusions?? I'm bummed by the horse manure floating around.

 

Avatar of: THenry02

THenry02

Posts: 12

May 25, 2013

I don't understand why it was so rushed. But we can't do anything but wait on the findings before we say anything about the credibility of the study.

Avatar of: dnatorna

dnatorna

Posts: 1

March 24, 2014

the truth have only one.

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
Mettler Toledo
BD Biosciences
BD Biosciences