On 2016 Sep 21, Morten Oksvold commented:

The published erratum of this article does not mention that a committee at McGill University has completed an investigation and concluded that several articles, included this one, were subjected to research misconduct. More specifically they found that two figures in this study “were intentionally contrived and falsified,”.

Please see a discussion at Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.com/2013/01/25/mcgill-committee-says-nature-figures-were-intentionally-contrived-and-falsified/

More recently a study by Vande Walle et al. (Nature, Brief communication) is questioning the conclusions in this article.

Please follow link:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7605/full/nature17649.html

On 2016 Sep 21, Morten Oksvold commented:

The published erratum of this article does not mention that a committee at McGill University has completed an investigation and concluded that several articles, included this one, were subjected to research misconduct. More specifically they found that two figures in this study “were intentionally contrived and falsified,”.

Please see a discussion at Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.com/2013/01/25/mcgill-committee-says-nature-figures-were-intentionally-contrived-and-falsified/

More recently a study by Vande Walle et al. (Nature, Brief communication) is questioning the conclusions in this article.

Please follow link:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7605/full/nature17649.html