On 2015 Jul 02, Leonid Schneider commented:

This paper has now been retracted, June 19th, 2015: http://www.jbc.org/content/290/25/15391

On 2014 Aug 18, Paul Brookes commented:

I did not discover the following; these comments were sent to me by an anonymous correspondent, and I agree with their assessment of the data, so am posting here using my own name even though this is not a paper I have either read, or am familiar with the field of...

There appears to be duplication of several bands in Supplemental Figure 1. Specifically, the anti-EGFP blot in Figure S1A, the anti-Myc blot in Figure S1B (rotated by 180 degrees), and the left two lanes of the anti-GFP blot in Figure S1C are all remarkably similar considering their allegedly different sample origins.

In Figure 2 of the main manuscript, there also appear to be several undisclosed splicing events. In the anti-myc blot (lower panel) of Figure 2B, enhanced contrast seems to suggest that several images were used to compile this image. Furthermore in Figure 2D, left panel, the anti-EGFP blot lower panel) contains a splicing seam in between the 1st and second lanes.

Finally, bringing the story full-circle, in the right panel of Figure 2D, the bands in the anti-GST blot (middle panel) appear to resemble those discussed above WRT Figure S1, but flipped horizontally and stretched vertically.

FYI, another paper from the same group Schwamborn JC, 2007 has also been flagged by the same person, and I have/will left a comment there too. I am reliably informed that the DFG (German equivalent of the NIH) is aware of these data problems, as are the journals involved. However more than 6 months has now passed with no actions taken.

On 2014 Aug 18, Paul Brookes commented:

I did not discover the following; these comments were sent to me by an anonymous correspondent, and I agree with their assessment of the data, so am posting here using my own name even though this is not a paper I have either read, or am familiar with the field of...

There appears to be duplication of several bands in Supplemental Figure 1. Specifically, the anti-EGFP blot in Figure S1A, the anti-Myc blot in Figure S1B (rotated by 180 degrees), and the left two lanes of the anti-GFP blot in Figure S1C are all remarkably similar considering their allegedly different sample origins.

In Figure 2 of the main manuscript, there also appear to be several undisclosed splicing events. In the anti-myc blot (lower panel) of Figure 2B, enhanced contrast seems to suggest that several images were used to compile this image. Furthermore in Figure 2D, left panel, the anti-EGFP blot lower panel) contains a splicing seam in between the 1st and second lanes.

Finally, bringing the story full-circle, in the right panel of Figure 2D, the bands in the anti-GST blot (middle panel) appear to resemble those discussed above WRT Figure S1, but flipped horizontally and stretched vertically.

FYI, another paper from the same group Schwamborn JC, 2007 has also been flagged by the same person, and I have/will left a comment there too. I am reliably informed that the DFG (German equivalent of the NIH) is aware of these data problems, as are the journals involved. However more than 6 months has now passed with no actions taken.

On 2015 Jul 02, Leonid Schneider commented:

This paper has now been retracted, June 19th, 2015: http://www.jbc.org/content/290/25/15391