How To Read A Retraction, Gazfuckbajillion!!11!

August 4, 2010

Nice one in PNAS today:

Retraction for “HOS10 encodes an R2R3-type MYB transcription factor essential for cold acclimation in plants” by Jianhua Zhu, Paul E. Verslues, Xianwu Zheng, Byeong-ha Lee, Xiangqiang Zhan, Yuzuki Manabe, Irina Sokolchik, Yanmei Zhu, Chun-Hai Dong, Jian-Kang Zhu, Paul M. Hasegawa, and Ray A. Bressan, which appeared in issue 28, July 12, 2005, of Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (102:9966–9971; first published online July 1, 2005; 10.1073/pnas.0503960102).

The authors wish to note the following: “The locus AT1g35515 that was claimed to be responsible for the cold sensitive phenotype of the HOS10 mutant was misidentified. The likely cause of the error was an inaccurate tail PCR product coupled with the ability of HOS10 mutants to spontaneously revert to wild type, appearing as complemented phenotypes. The SALK alleles of AT1g35515 in ecotype Columbia could not be confirmed by the more reliable necrosis assay. Therefore, the locus responsible for the HOS10 phenotypes reported in ecotype C24 remains unknown. The other data reported were confirmed with the exception of altered expression of AT1g35515, which appears reduced but not to the extent shown in Zhu et al. The authors regrettably retract the article.” [Emphasis added]

Sounds like these fuckers were–at best–too happy to see the complementation support their hypothesis, and thus didn’t do appropriate fucken controls, which would have revealed that the rate of complementation was exactly the same as the rate of spontaneous reversion. Or worse, there was some cherry picking of data going on. Also, it is pretty suspicious that–in addition to the bogus complementation data–there was also, coincidentally, altered expression of the same locus that was not confirmable after publication. Again, sounds like some cherry picking may have been going on.

Worst case scenario, all this shit was totally cherry picked data within the normal range of variability and ginned up into a totally fake fucken story.

No Responses Yet to “How To Read A Retraction, Gazfuckbajillion!!11!”

  1. Pascale Says:

    I don’t know why you bother to put a byline on your posts. We can all tell for damn sure which one of you wrote this one.
    Fucken waste of pixels.


  2. Maybe it has to do with the frequency of publication and that PNAS is a highly visisble journal, but it seems like a high number papers are being retracted there (1 or 2 a week?). Makes me curious about the correlation between papers retracted and impact factors…


  3. ex-hedgehog freak Says:

    Yeah, but biochem belle, we all know how many people get their papers into PNASty


  4. isis Says:

    I have no idea what all that shit means, but RETRACSHUNS!!!!


  5. Kevin Z Says:

    But what is the correlation between retractions and chinese authors??? OH YEAH I FUCKIN WENT THERE!! PUT ME IN THE DOUCHE CHAIR!


  6. DrugMonkey Says:

    You are a douche.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: