https://retractionwatch.com/2024/06/18/nature-retracts-highly-cited-2002-paper-that-claimed-adult-stem-cells-could-become-any-type-of-cell/ Skip to content Retraction Watch Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Menu and widgets Pages * How you can support Retraction Watch * Invite us to speak * Meet the Retraction Watch staff + About Adam Marcus + About Ivan Oransky * Our Editorial Independence Policy * Papers and peer reviews with evidence of ChatGPT writing * Papers that cite Retraction Watch * Privacy policy * Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers * Retraction Watch Database User Guide + Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix A: Fields + Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix B: Reasons + Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix C: Article Types + Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix D: Changes * The Center For Scientific Integrity + Board of Directors * The Retraction Watch FAQ, including comments policy + The Retraction Watch Transparency Index * The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker + Methods * The Retraction Watch Leaderboard + Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers * The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List * What people are saying about Retraction Watch Search for: [ ] [Search] Recent Comments * Fernando Pessoa on Nature retracts highly cited 2002 paper that claimed adult stem cells could become any type of cell * J Sr on Nature retracts highly cited 2002 paper that claimed adult stem cells could become any type of cell * Rob Keller on Journal hijackers still infiltrate Scopus despite its efforts Archives Archives [Select Month ] Nature retracts highly cited 2002 paper that claimed adult stem cells could become any type of cell [catherine_2] Nature has retracted a 2002 paper from the lab of Catherine Verfaillie purporting to show a type of adult stem cell could, under certain circumstances, "contribute to most, if not all, somatic cell types." The retracted article, "Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow," has been controversial since its publication. Still, it has been cited nearly 4,500 times, according to Clarivate's Web of Science - making it by far the most-cited retracted paper ever. In 2007, New Scientist reported on questions about data in the Nature paper and another of Verfaille's articles in Blood. Nature published a correction that year. The errors the authors corrected "do not alter the conclusions of the Article," they wrote in the notice. The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities in Minneapolis, where Verfaillie worked when the Nature paper was published, in 2008 found the Blood paper contained falsified images, but Verfaillie was not responsible for the manipulations. Blood retracted the article in 2009 at the request of the authors. Verfaillie moved to KU Leuven, where she is now an emeritus professor . She has not responded to our request for comment. KU Leuven conducted an investigation of Verfaillie's work in 2019-2020, after Elisabeth Bik posted questions about the data in her papers, including the one from 2002 in Nature, on PubPeer. The university found "no breach of research integrity in the publications investigated." Bik tweeted about the retraction: OMG @Nature just retracted one of the Verfaillie papers @UMNews, 4.5 years after I reported it. And without letting me know https://t.co/aWrDMQKN5Shttps://t.co/ BmZ3BcJdQt pic.twitter.com/r7BZEaqGbQ -- Elisabeth Bik (@MicrobiomDigest) June 17, 2024 The notice mentions two image duplications Bik wrote about on PubPeer. Because the authors could not retrieve the original images, it states: the Editors no longer have confidence that the conclusion that multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs) engraft in the bone marrow is supported. Given the concerns above the Editors no longer have confidence in the reliability of the data reported in this article. According to the notice, most of the authors, including Verfaillie, agreed with the retraction. She now has four retractions, by our count. Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that's not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com. Share this: * Email * Facebook * Twitter * Related Posted on June 18, 2024June 18, 2024Author Ellie KincaidCategories nature retractions 2 thoughts on "Nature retracts highly cited 2002 paper that claimed adult stem cells could become any type of cell" 1. [0c5cee] J Sr says: June 18, 2024 at 3:49 pm U of MN TC (my alma mater) is doing GrEaT! Really a shame how a university that targeted being "top 3 research school" in USA didn't get close. - Alzheimer's fraud sending countless research dollars to nowhere. Giving people false hope. - Deliberately corrupting Linux. - Roundup killing the earth. A land grant institution put in place to give the working class ordinaries a chance has become an unaffordable alternate reality of deception. Sit back. Collect rent. Hang out at the cabin. All good. A shame. Reply 1. [5bb5b7] Fernando Pessoa says: June 18, 2024 at 4:59 pm "Verfaillie moved to KU Leuven, where she is now an emeritus professor. She has not responded to our request for comment. " https://cancer.umn.edu/staff/david-largaespada The penultimate author of the retracted paper, David Largaespada "is a full professor in the Departments of Pediatrics and Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development and the Associate Director for Basic Research in the Masonic Cancer Center at University of Minnesota." Perhaps Retraction Watch could request a comment from him. Reply Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment * [ ] Name * [ ] Email * [ ] Website [ ] [Post Comment] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Post navigation Previous Previous post: Journal hijackers still infiltrate Scopus despite its efforts Privacy policy Proudly powered by WordPress