Nature flags 2010 cancer study over duplicated image concerns

Nature issues concern over 2010 cancer study

The journal Nature has published an Editorial Expression of Concern regarding a 2010 paper on cancer biology. The notice, published in 2026, flags potential issues with several images in the original research.

The editors state that concerns have been raised about western blot bands in three figures. They note that specific bands in Figures 1e, 3g, and 4c appear to be very similar to each other.

Original data is unavailable

The core issue is that the authors no longer have the original data, making it impossible to verify the images. Because of this, the journal is advising readers to interpret the affected results with caution.

The paper, titled "Transcription-independent ARF regulation in oncogenic stress-mediated p53 responses," was originally published online on March 7, 2010. It explored mechanisms behind the tumor suppressor protein p53.

Authors disagree with the concern

On behalf of the author group, Wei Gu has stated that the authors do not agree with the Expression of Concern. This indicates a dispute between the research team and the journal's editorial board over the interpretation of the image irregularities.

The notice is a formal step journals take to alert the scientific community to potential problems in published work. It falls short of a retraction but signals that the findings may not be reliable.

Paper involved major research institutions

The 2010 study was a collaboration between scientists at several prominent institutions. The key facts about the research team are:

• The work involved researchers from Columbia University in New York.
• Contributors were also based at Peking University Health Science Center in Beijing.
• Teams from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, were part of the study.

The corresponding authors were D. Chen, J. Shan, and WG. Zhu. The new Expression of Concern carries the same digital object identifier (DOI) as the original article, linking the two publications directly.

Long-standing challenges in image integrity

This case highlights ongoing challenges in scientific publishing regarding image duplication and data preservation. Journals have become increasingly vigilant in screening for manipulated images after publication.

The fact that the concerns were raised 16 years after the paper's original publication shows how problems can surface long after initial peer review. It also underscores the critical importance of authors retaining original, unprocessed data.

For now, the paper remains in the scientific record with a prominent warning attached. Researchers citing the work will need to weigh its conclusions against the journal's stated concerns and the authors' rebuttal.