The conversation is not over regarding two recent retractions of papers on enzyme engineering. Two letters linkurl:published; this month in Science say that the explanation of retraction issued by linkurl:Homme Hellinga's; group at Duke University does not account for many of the errors in the original publications. The linkurl:Grantsmanship blog; has also collected long running commentary on the circumstances surrounding the retractions. On February 1, Hellinga's group issued a statement of retraction for their 2004 Science paper on redesigning ribose-binding protein (RBP) to catalyze triose phosphate isomerase (TIM) activity -- a reaction crucial to glycolysis in almost all types of cells. They explained that linkurl:John Richard,; in the department of biochemistry at the State University of New York, Buffalo, found that the TIM activity of the new enzyme was due to wild-type contamination during his own experiments with the redesigned enzyme. A month later the group retracted a second paper...
Journal of Molecular BiologyThe Scientist.ScienceThe ScientistThe ScientistScienceNatureThe ScientistScienceE coliScienceNatureScienceNature

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member?