Concern about stem cell research from KU Leuven and the University of Minnesota

In the past week, I looked at papers from the group of Catherine Verfaillie, who previously worked at the University of Minnesota (USA) and later became the director of the Stem Cell Institute at the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven; Belgium). The outcome of this renewed look at a “cold case” was first described by Leonid Schneider in a December 4 post on his For Better Science blog.

In short, Verfaillie’s lab at the University of Minnesota became famous after a 2002 Nature paper by Jiang et al. in which she described MAPCs, a pluripotent bone-marrow derived cell that she could grow into pretty much any differentiated cell type.

Early concerns about Verfaillie’s papers

Four years later, New Scientist reporters Eugenie Samuel Reich and Peter Aldhous found that some panels from the Nature paper had been duplicated to represent different cell types in a 2002 Experimental Hematology paper, also by Jiang et al. They also found duplications in other sets of papers from her group, including two papers by Reyes et al. in Blood (2001) and the Journal of Clinical Investigation (2002). The University of Minnesota investigated these papers, and – as per this news article in Nature – concluded that science misconduct had been committed by graduate student Morayma Reyes, and that Catherine Verfaillie could be “blamed for insufficient oversight”. The Blood (2001) paper got retracted, and five other papers, including the famous Nature (2002) paper got away with a correction.

Press about concerns Verfaillie’s papers from around 2000-2002:

Revisiting a cold case

When I took a closer look earlier this week, I found 10 additional papers from Verfaillie’s group with possible duplicated images. In addition, I found previously unreported problems in the Nature 2002 paper. Some of the problematic papers stemmed from 1997, while others were as recent as 2014. I posted all of these papers (18 as of today) on Pubpeer.

In the Jiang et al. Nature stem-cell research paper that made headlines in 2002, and that got away with a relatively mild Correction in 2008 that did not mention the duplicated panels from the Experimental Hematology paper, I found two additional problems.

Figure 6a shows tissue from a control mouse (colored in red) while panel 6e shows tissue from a mouse that received the stem cells (colored in yellow). However, these two panels appear to show an overlap, suggesting these 2 photos were derived from the same mouse.

In addition, Figure 6m from the same Nature paper appears to show repeating features at the top right of the photo. Here is that photo, marked by me with colored ellipses at the top:

In another paper from 2002, Gupta et al. Kidney International (2002), Figure 1 panels A and D appear to show the same photo, albeit rotated 180 degrees. Of note, panel A shows a male patient who received a male kidney, while panel D is supposed to show the kidney of a male patient who received a kidney from a woman. The red dots are Y chromosomes, and panel B is supposed to show us that the male cells from the recipient grow into the female kidney.

New attention for the old case

The PubPeer posts quickly gained attention by news sites in Belgium and other sites, so here is a round-up of the articles as of today. Most of these are in Belgian-Dutch, but you can copy/paste the URL into Google Translate to read it in your language of choice. I will update this list in the following days.

4 thoughts on “Concern about stem cell research from KU Leuven and the University of Minnesota”

  1. Your tweet on microscopy outsourcing….
    Here is late Max F Perutz excellent piece on LMB

    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/uncategorized/the-medical-research-council-laboratory-of-molecular-biology
    by Max F Pertuz Nobel Laureate in Chemistry. Here are his words

    “Scientific instruments were to be shared, rather than being jealously guarded as people’s private property; this saved money and also forced people to talk to each other.”

    The funding system is not as it was during the late Max Pertuz’s time. However there has been huge cuts in funds and the system of PI getting funds has become the norm. PIs expect postdocs (PDs) , doctoral students to do everything. The technician is slowly a vanishing breed in science labs due to fund cuts. So PDs and doctoral students are expected to do everything. To rephrase Max Pertuz, PI regard, “Labs as not pvt property” . This PI may see another PI have microscopy , but being a hype competitive PI with full blown hubris , this PI would not ask the PI for microscopy. PI outsources to another place where their network is. PIs now do not talk to each other leave alone sharing of instruments. To follow Max Pertuz advice , in accordance with times of fund cuts, will a centralized lab with instrumentation with trained technician solve the problem of sharing and not outsourcing research measuremeents.

    Like

    1. To rephrase Max Pertuz, PI regard, “Labs as not pvt property”
      This should read as ” PIs regard scientific instruments as their pvt property”

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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