- News Home
17 April 2014 12:48 pm ,
Vol. 344 ,
Officials last week revealed that the U.S. contribution to ITER could cost $3.9 billion by 2034—roughly four times the...
An experimental hepatitis B drug that looked safe in animal trials tragically killed five of 15 patients in 1993. Now,...
Using the two high-quality genomes that exist for Neandertals and Denisovans, researchers find clues to gene activity...
A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that humanity has done little to slow...
Astronomers have discovered an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf—a star cooler than the sun—500...
Three years ago, Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University proposed that a warming Arctic was altering the behavior of the...
- 17 April 2014 12:48 pm , Vol. 344 , #6181
- About Us
Stem Cell Paper Retracted
14 October 2010 12:04 pm
Three stem cell scientists have retracted a paper they published early this year in Nature. Details are sketchy, but in the retraction, released today, they say that a "re-examination" of the paper "raised serious concerns."
In a series of experiments, the group joined the blood circulation of old and young mice, a method that's been used for decades in different kinds of studies, to test whether animals with a certain feature (youth, in this case) can impart it to others that don't have it. The authors, led by Amy Wagers at the Joslin Diabetes Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston, reported that the old mice did develop features of younger ones, in particular in the balance of different types of bone marrow cells. They traced this change to signals from certain bone-forming cells affecting blood stem cells from the young animals. A Harvard publication gives a nice summary of the work here.
The retraction specifies that three of the four authors have specifically lost confidence in the paper's findings about the role of these bone cells. They say that the first author, postdoc Shane Mayack, did not sign on to the retraction and maintains the results are still valid. The blog Retraction Watch has some more details.