Human embryonic stem cell study under investigation

A
group of anonymous scientists has voiced concerns about a controversial stem cell finding published online in Cell earlier this month, causing the journal
to begin an investigation.

The
study initially captivated the media and scientific community when its authors
reported they had successfully generated the first human embryonic stem cell
line from adult skin cells using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) (reported in BioNews 705).

The suspicions,
issued on post-publication peer review website PubPeer, centre on four images
that are alleged to be incorrectly and inappropriately duplicated, mislabelled,
or otherwise manipulated. The reviewers were silent about whether this
constituted intentional fraud, suggesting that mistakes were possible but remarking that two of the images required work beyond accidental error.

In
response to the matter, the journal has launched a preliminary investigation
into the paper. Cell spokesperson Mary Beth O’Leary summarised the results,
stating that while 'there were some minor errors' they did 'not believe these
errors impact the scientific findings'.

Lead
author Dr
Shoukhrat Mitalipov, of the Oregon Health and Science University, has
also responded to the allegations. He defended his results, citing nothing but 'honest'
and 'innocent' mistakes, but plans to write an erratum for Cell. Dr Mitalipov further
intends to distribute the cells to ten other research centres for external
verification. Addressing the concerns at large, he explained: 'The results are
real, the cell lines are real, everything is real'.

These
allegations echo several of the same charges originally raised against Hwang
Woo-Suk, whose infamous paper in the journal Science was discovered to contain fabricated
figures and data. 'This is really like déjà vu all over again', Dr
Arnold Kriegstein, a fellow stem cell researcher at the University of
California-San Francisco, told Nature News.

In
addition to sparking concerns about the images, the study has served as a
lightning rod for growing dissatisfaction among scientists with the peer review
system. Cell accepted the paper four days after submission and published it
twelve days later — an accelerated process that has led many to question the
quality and rigour of its review for highly anticipated findings.

Dr Kriegstein highlighted this disappointment: 'The four day review process was obviously
inadequate. It's a degree of sloppiness that you wouldn't expect in a paper
that was going to have this 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'.

Cell
has negated these accusations, with O’Leary arguing: 'It is a
misrepresentation to equate slow peer review with thoroughness or rigour or to
use timely peer review as a justification for sloppiness in manuscript
preparation'. Instead, the quick acceptance was simply due to the graciousness
of reviewers, she stated.

Dr Mitalipov
has absolved the journal and articulated that he himself is responsible as he
wished to publish the findings in time for the annual meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell
Research. In doing so, he believes he may have rushed the
manuscript.

Cell
and Dr Mitalipov continue to stand behind the central claim of the paper, with
the print version of the article available 6 June 2013. The scheduled date for
the erratum is yet to be revealed.