Plant Cuttings

Dodgy photos dog phytology

The normally genteel world of botanical research has been shaken, stirred and shocked to its very core by a retraction of a paper.
Image: Wikimedia Commons.
Image: Wikimedia Commons.

It has oft been claimed that a picture is worth a thousand words. In the case of certain images in Klementina Kakar et al.’s study entitled ‘CLASP-mediated cortical microtubule organization guides PIN polarization axis’ it seems quite clear that many more than a thousand words have been written about them. Why? The normally genteel world of botanical research has been shaken, stirred and shocked to its very core by a retraction of that paper – which purported to identify the molecular machinery that connects the organisation of microtubules to the regulation of the axis of polarisation of auxin-transporting PIN proteins (which membrane-sited molecules are needed for transport of the plant hormone auxin across plasma membranes and thereby help to maintain polarity of growth and development within the plant). Relating as it does to fundamental aspects of plant growth and development and such phenomena as gravitropism, this is an important finding and understandably published in a very high-impact and influential journal. So what’s gone awry? A retraction is, after all, a very serious state of affairs. Well, and in the words of the same four authors of the original paper, ‘after re-examination of this Letter [this is how Nature articles are formally described], concerns with some of the reported data were raised. It was found that two confocal images were near-identical in panels of Figure 3 and two confocal images were re-used in panels of Figure 4, and that some gel images were inappropriately generated by cutting and pasting of non-adjacent bands. Therefore, we feel that the most responsible action is to retract the paper. We sincerely apologize for any adverse consequences that may have resulted from the paper’s publication’. For more on this, visit the various items at the Retraction Watch* website. Fortunately – for those unaware of this from media reports, etc, but who might otherwise come across the article in their literature searches, the PubMed entry for the original Nature paper does make mention of its subsequent retraction, and provides a link to the retraction notice. Although I don’t know if the paper’s retracted status is indicated on all search engines… However, in the scrabble to find appropriate literature to cite in one’s work, one might overlook that notification. Is this therefore a weakness in the otherwise laudable retraction process/system whereby subsequent readers of those papers may not be aware of their retraction? Maybe we need a form of historical revisionism reminiscent of the rewriting of history in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four to expunge such items from the record totally so that they’re never ever found…? Hmm, what would historians of science make of that? Do let us know!

* Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers. Launched in August 2010 it is produced by science writers Ivan Oransky (executive editor of Reuters Health) and Adam Marcus (managing editor of Anesthesiology News).

[For more on the costs associated with retractions, check out Tracy Vence’s commentary at The Scientist.  And with such sobering news, if you are concerned that retractions can unduly affect one’s career, Virginia Gewin has some words of comfort. But, if you want more retraction stories, why not check out last year’s ‘Top 10’? – Ed.]