Stem cell breakthrough offers hope for men with erectile dysfunction after prostate surgery – The Independent

A breakthrough in stem cell research has given men left with erectile dysfunction after prostate surgery the chance to enjoy normal intercourse again, according to new research.

In early clinical trials, eight out of 15 incontinent men suffering from erectile dysfunction were able to have sex, six months after undergoing a one-time stem cell treatment, Scientists told European Association of Urology's annual meeting in London.

All of the men involved had used pills or devices to get an erection beforehand, leadresearcherDr Lars, Lund toldThe Independent.

Fifty-three per cent of the men have kept the ability [to have sex] after one year, without having to use drugs or implants and other devices," added theprofessor atOdenseUniversity Hospital inDenmark. Its very promising.

Prostate surgery is responsible for up to 13 per cent of erectile dysfunction cases.

Researchersremovedfat cells from a patients abdomen via liposuction. Theyundergo a brief treatment and are turned into all-purpose stem-cells, meaning they are able to mutate into nearly any cell in the body.

Dr Lund said the study is the first of its kind to inject stem cells directly into the penis with a syringe.There,they begin to transform into nerve and muscle cells, as well as endothelial cells that line blood vessels, he said.

Men are put under general anaesthesia while the procedure happens, and are discharged from hospital the same day.

The next step will see his team to perform a randomised controlled trial of the treatment.

Participants will be randomly assigned one of several clinical interventions alongside a control group, in which subjects are given a placebo or no intervention.

Dr Lund said that while the research is still in its early stages, the results so far have already showed promise.

View original post here:
Stem cell breakthrough offers hope for men with erectile dysfunction after prostate surgery - The Independent

New stem cell method produces millions of human brain and muscle cells in days – Science Daily

Science Daily

New stem cell method produces millions of human brain and muscle cells in days Science Daily The OPTi-OX method could be used to make many cell types that haven't been possible to grow before. Credit: Matthias Pawlowski et al. Stem Cell Reports (2017) Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute Wellcome Trust - Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem ... New tools to study the origin of embryonic stem cellsPhys.Org Cambridge scientists help develop new stem cell method | News ...The Cambridge Student Scientists Use Stem Cells to Grow Brain and Muscle Cells Faster Than EverInverse Medgadget (blog) -Wall Street Pit -Nature -University of Bristol all 37 news articles »

See more here:
New stem cell method produces millions of human brain and muscle cells in days - Science Daily

A New Form of Stem-Cell Engineering Raises Ethical Questions – New York Times

New York Times

A New Form of Stem-Cell Engineering Raises Ethical Questions New York Times A scan of the surface of a human embryonic stem cell. Credit David Scharf/Science Source. As biological research races forward, ethical quandaries are piling up. In a report published Tuesday in the journal eLife, researchers at Harvard Medical School ... Harvard Scientists Call For Better Rules To Guide Research On 'Embryoids'NPR all 4 news articles »

See the original post:
A New Form of Stem-Cell Engineering Raises Ethical Questions - New York Times

Beware the hype on stem-cell breakthroughs – The Globe and Mail – The Globe and Mail

Health science gets a lot of attention in the popular press. People love hearing about breakthroughs, paradigm shifts and emerging cures. The problem is, these stories are almost always misleading.

While optimistic miscalculations of the state of biomedical research may seem as if it were a harmless distraction, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests it can be the source of real social harm. It can drive unrealistic expectations, affect the public utilization of health-care resources and even shape a less-than-ideal research agenda. It can also help to legitimize the marketing of unproven therapies.

This week, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) reported on three individuals who went blind after receiving an unproven stem cell treatment at a Florida clinic. The patients paid thousands of dollars for what they thought was a clinical trial on the use of stem cells to treat macular degeneration.

The primary fault, both legally and morally, for the marketing and use of unproven stem-cell therapies lies with the providers who are involved with the practice. We need national regulators (e.g., Health Canada, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) and the bodies that oversee the relevant health-care professionals (e.g., the colleges that regulate physicians) to take a more active role a point noted by Dr. George Daley in an essay accompanying the NEJM case report.

Indeed, it is hard to blame patients for being drawn to providers that present optimistic portrayals of benefit. We live in confusing times. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tease out the real science from the bad and the fake health news from a genuinely exciting scientific advance. Not only is the science twisted by multiple systemic forces publication pressures, overenthusiastic news releases, commercial interests and media spin misinformation is being broadcast on a growing number of communication platforms. Social media, for example, have allowed for the rapid dissemination of false promises and creation of confirmation bubbles in which like-minded believers can trade anecdotes of success. And studies have shown clinics exploit platforms such as Twitter to create buzz about and demand for unproven therapies.

For the general public, here is a good rule of thumb: Doubt every claim that suggests a significant breakthrough. Doubt everything. This may sound a tad cynical, but if you adopt this approach you will be pleasantly surprised when something actually pans out. More important, this nothing-ever-works-as-promised strategy will be correct 99 per cent of the time.

For patients seeking a treatment, be cautious of any clinic offering a therapy that seems too good to be true, because virtually every time it will be too good to be true.

Consider stem-cell research. Think of all the hype, the headlines about near-future applications and the pronouncement about revolutionary regenerative therapies. This hand waving has been going on for almost two decades. So much so that the phrase stem cells has morphed into cultural marker for cutting edge. But despite all this unrelenting, upbeat noise, there are very few stem-cell therapies that are currently ready for clinical application. Daley, who is a renowned stem-cell researcher and the current dean of Harvard Medical School, concludes there are just a handful: those used for the blood-related ailments and for the skin (epithelium) conditions. The International Society for Stem Cell Research agrees with Daley and notes the list of diseases for which stem-cell treatments have been shown to be beneficial is still very short.

Dont get me wrong; I believe stem-cell research remains a fantastically promising area of science. But true medical breakthroughs are rare. Incredibly rare. In fact, if a study claims a large effect size, which is often the case in stories about breakthroughs, there is a good chance the results will be overturned by subsequent work. In a well-known 2003 analysis, it was found that out of 101 studies published between 1979 and 1983 in top science journals and framed as clinically promising interventions, only one was used extensively for the licensed indications (yes, about 99 per cent of the peer-reviewed predictions were wrong). The authors concluded that even the most promising findings of basic research take a long time to translate into clinical experimentation, and adoption in clinical practice is rare.

Yes, we need regulators to crack down on the marketing of unproven stem-cell therapies. As demonstrated by these recent reports of treatment-induced blindness, these clinics can cause serious harm. But we also need to do our best to curb the science noise that helps to legitimize the false claims made by the purveyors of stem-cell products. Scientists, clinicians, policy makers and journalists should do their best to counter misinformation in all its forms.

More good science, less science-y noise.

Timothy Caulfield is Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta, a Trudeau Fellow and author of Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?

This story first appeared in Healthy Debate, an online publication guided by health-care professionals and patients that covers health policy and evidence-based medicine in Canada.

Follow us on Twitter: @Globe_Health

Read more here:
Beware the hype on stem-cell breakthroughs - The Globe and Mail - The Globe and Mail

After 3 Women Are Blinded, This Controversial Procedure Is Back in the Spotlight – NewBeauty Magazine (blog)

A new report published by the New England Journal of Medicine details that three women have become permanently blinded after undergoing stem cell injections into their eyes at a Florida clinic. The three subjects were suffering from macular degeneration, an age-related eye disease that leads to vision impairment, and were under the impression that they were participating in a clinical trial for treatment of the disorder. In reality, these women had undergone the procedure at an unregulated Florida clinic called US Stem Cell, where staffers extracted stem cells from the womens belly fat via liposuction and then injected them into the eyes.

Stem cell treatments, although buzzy (youve heard about them in the context of being able to treat a myriad of disorders and even incorporated into skin care products) are largely unregulated, making it difficult for consumers to differentiate between solid medical research versus marketing hype. While there is plenty of legitimate research being done in the spacesome very promisingtherapy centers that lack safety standards or sufficient medical knowledge are commonplace.

You May Also Like: What You Need to Know About the New Botox Bill

According to Westchester, NY, oculoplastic surgeon James Gordon, MD, stem cell injections could potentially offer ocular benefits including treatment for corneal disease and optic nerve problems, but isnt considered the most conventional approach for treating common eye disorders. Macular degeneration is usually a slowly progressive disorder, he says. The disease progress can be slowed down further with intake of antioxidant vitamins, sunglasses and green leafy vegetables, and in more severe cases, by injecting certain medications directly into the eye.

Montclair, NJ, plastic surgeon Vincent Giampapa, MD, says that there are some promising uses for stem cell treatments with a track record of good results and years of research behind them, but the use of stem cell treatments for macular denegation is still very new and experimental at the moment.

To date, there is only one FDA-approved stem cell product, which is used to treat specific blood disorders and the agency advises those considering stem cell treatment for other uses to only participate in FDA-regulated clinical studies.

If patients want to consider stem cell therapy for a disease, they should go to ClinicalTrials.gov and look for specific trials that are approved by the government with an IRB (independent review/ethics board) study, says Dr. Giampapa. This is the only legitimate way to find a study that is being run in an approved fashion and with the appropriate safety factors in place.

When patients are considering an unconventional approach to treating a medical condition they should first investigate approved treatment options. If none of these seem particularly promising, then it's reasonable to explore other alternatives, adds Dr. Gordon. The credentials of the doctors involved need to be known. Previous results and complications of the treatment need to be carefully reviewed. Potential risks are very important to consider. When the risks of poor outcomes outweighs the potential benefits, the patient might be wise not to pursue the treatment. Second and third opinions from physicians not involved should be sought.

Read more here:
After 3 Women Are Blinded, This Controversial Procedure Is Back in the Spotlight - NewBeauty Magazine (blog)

A Groundbreaking Stem Cell Treatment Just Prevented a Woman From Going Blind – Futurism

In Brief

Macular degeneration affects more than 10 million people in the U.S., and is the most common cause of vision loss. It is caused by the deterioration of the middle of the retina, called the macula. The macula focuses central vision and controls our ability to see objects in fine detail, read, recognize colors and faces, and drive a car. Until now, the disease has been considered incurable.

An octogenarian with the condition is now the first person to receivesuccessful treatmentwith induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. The progression of the womans macular degenerationwas arrested by new retinal cells made in the lab.Unlike embryonic stem cells, iPS cells can be created from regular adult cells.In this case, the cells used to repair the damaged retina from macular degeneration came from the womansskin.

The team at Kobe, Japans RIKEN Laboratory for Retinal Regeneration, led by Masayo Takahashi, created iPS cells from the patients skin cells. Then, theyencouraged them to form cells to patch the retinal pigment epithelium. These cells help nourish and support the retina, allowing it to capture the light the eye needs to see.

Once the cells were transformed, the team used them to make a slither measuring 1 by 3 millimeters. This was the patch they used to replace the diseased tissue removed from the patients retina. Their aim was to stop the degeneration and save her sight. The results show that the procedure was technically a success: although her vision did not improve, the degeneration stopped.

A possible concern about this treatment, however, is that creating new tissues from stem cells could cause genetic mutations, which might in turnlead to cancer. While more research in this area and its possible applications is needed, in the case of the patient at RIKEN, therehave been no signs of cancer or any other complications.

Original post:
A Groundbreaking Stem Cell Treatment Just Prevented a Woman From Going Blind - Futurism

New research shows promise for the production of patient-matched blood cells for therapies, disease modeling and … – Science Daily

The Galat laboratory at Stanley Manne Children's Research Institute, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, has developed an elegant system to derive blood cell precursors from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSC). This type of stem cell has the potential to develop into many different kinds of cells in the body, and is capable of participating in organ repair and function. These qualities have prompted scientists to test the use of hPSC to treat some diseases. However, the development of a fully defined system to generate functional blood cell precursors has proven to be a significant challenge. The Galat lab's findings hold promise to overcome this challenge.

The approach is reliable, cost-effective and relatively simple. By eliminating variables used in other systems, the lab has streamlined the process of developing blood cell precursors. This allows scientists to study the factors that affect early stages of blood cell development, and provides a mechanism for clinician-researchers to develop therapies for patients.

In a series of experiments, the lab converted adult skin cells into hPSC and then used these patient specific cells to optimize their platform of blood cell precursor derivation. Various assays were employed in order to demonstrate the ability of blood cell precursors to form mature cells of blood lineage. The cells were identified in collaboration with immunology labs at Lurie Children's and Rosalind Franklin University.

A description of the work, entitled "Cytokine Free Directed Differentiation of hPSC Efficiently Produces Hemogenic Endothelium With Lymphoid Potential," is published online in the journal Stem Cell Research & Therapy. Previously, scientists have relied on the introduction of external factors -- proteins or cells -- to induce hPSC to differentiate. In addition to potentially changing the outcomes, these factors can complicate the experimental setup and cause inefficiencies or bias in the generation of blood cell precursors.

"We designed the platform to exclude as many factors that can cause variability in the differentiation outcome as possible. These factors include co-culturing the hPSC with non-human animal cells that secrete an un-measurable amount of substances into the media, which is used to promote differentiation. We also excluded cytokines -- proteins that affect hPSC differentiation in various ways depending on their quality," says Yekaterina Galat, first author on the publication. "We demonstrated that the unique approach we developed efficiently promotes differentiation of hPSC to blood cell precursors, while eliminating many complications," she continues.

Co-senior author Philip M. Iannaccone, MD, PhD, says, "Importantly, this novel induction system, grown on one layer, avoids unwarranted effects associated with cellular interactions that happen in 3D cultures, as well as excessive priming by multiple cytokines, which complicates studies of developmental and functional aspects of the formation of blood cells, and their specifications." Iannaccone is Professor of Pediatrics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Developmental Biology Program at the Manne Research Institute.

Says corresponding author and laboratory director Vasil Galat, PhD, "Our hope is to leverage this platform so that we can help other scientists and clinicians. The cells we derive can be used to study factors for their effects on hPSC differentiation, paving the way for studies of drug efficacy and toxicity, and to model diseases. We envision, for example, the ability to take blood cells from a patient, correct the genetic defects in the lab, and then re-introduce them into the patient. It is hoped that processes such as this can be used to treat blood disorders."

Galat's lab is currently working with Ramsay Fuleihan, MD, an attending physician in the Division of Allergy and Immunology and the director of Primary Immunodeficiency Clinical Services at Lurie Children's, on a project to derive patient cells, fix the mutation causing immune deficiency and differentiate the cells into healthy blood lineage.

Follow this link:
New research shows promise for the production of patient-matched blood cells for therapies, disease modeling and ... - Science Daily

3 women blinded after undergoing unproven stell cell ‘therapy’ – WZZM – WZZM13.com

April Stevens , WZZM 12:08 PM. EST March 19, 2017

Close up of an eye surgery, stock image. (Photo: Thinkstock)

SANFORD, CALIF. - Three women with macular degeneration were blinded after an unproven stem cell treatment described as a "clinical trial."

A recent paper published in The New England Journal of Medicine documents the cases and is a "call to awareness for patients, physicians and regulatory agencies" on minimally regulated, patient-funded research according to Jeffrey Goldberg, MD, PhD, professor and chair of ophthalmology at the Stanford University School of Medicine and co-author of the paper.

Three patients -- all women ranging in age from 72 to 88 -- suffered from macular degeneration, a common disease of the retina that leads to loss of vision over time. Before the patients underwent surgery, their vision ranged from 20/30 to 20/200.

Now, all three patients are likely to remain blind due to complications from the stem cell treatments.

"Although I can't say it's impossible, it's extremely unlikely they would regain vision," said co-author Thomas Albini, MD,an associate professor of clinical ophthalmology at the University of Miami, where two of the patients went to treat complications.

The trial appealed to patients 'desperate for care'

Two of the patients learned of the so-called clinical trial on ClinicalTrials.gov, a registry and results database run by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. The patients believed they were participating in a trial, although the consent form and other written materials given to the them did not mention a trial, Albini said.

"There's a lot of hope for stem cells, and these types of clinics appeal to patients desperate for care who hope that stem cells are going to be the answer, but in this case these women participated in a clinical enterprise that was off-the-charts dangerous," Albini said.

Each patient paid $5,000 for the procedure, which authors said should have raised a red flag.

"I'm not aware of any legitimate research, at least in ophthalmology, that is patient-funded," Albini said.

At the Florida clinic where the procedure took place, patients have fat cells removed from their abdomens and a standard blood draw. The fat tissue was processed in a lab with the goal of obtaining stem cells and platelet-dense plasma was isolated from the blood. The cells were then mixed with the plasma and then injected into their eyes.

Patients reported that the entire process took less than an hour. The patients had both eyes treated at once -- another red flag, Albini and Goldberg said, because most doctors would opt to see how one eye responds to an experimental treatment before attempting the other eye.

No evidence the procedure would have restored vision

Shoddy stem cell preparation may have led to some of the complications, Albini said. However, even if executed correctly, there is no evidence that the procedure could have help to restore vision both authors report.

There is sparse evidence that fat-derived stem cells, the kind that the clinic claimed to use, are capable of differentiating, or maturing, into the kind of cells that researchers are attempting to target to develop therapies that could slow down macular degeneration.

"There is a lot of very well-founded evidence for the positive potential of stem therapy for many human diseases, but there's no excuse for not designing a trial properly and basing it on preclinical research," Goldberg said.

The "trial" lacked nearly all of the components of a properly designed clinical trial, including a hypothesis based on laboratory experiments, assignment of a control group and treatment group, collection of data, masking of clinical and patient groups, and plans for follow-up, Goldberg and Albini said.

Listings on ClinicalTrials.gov are not fully scrutinized for scientific soundness, Goldberg said. Although still visible on the website, the listing now states: "This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment."

Albini says the clinic is also no longer performing these eye injections, but still seeing patients.

The procedures were not subject to Food and Drug Administration approval because the cells were not transferred between patients and were considered "minimally processed," according to Title 21, Part 1271.10, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The FDA released more specific guidelines in October 2015, after these procedures were performed, establishing the requirement for FDA oversight and approval for these types of procedures.

'Lack of oversight can lead to bad players and bad outcomes'

"We expect health care providers to take every precaution to ensure patient safety, but this definitely shows that the lack of oversight can lead to bad players and bad outcomes. It's alarming," Albini said.

The authors acknowledged that it is difficult for patients to know whether a clinical trial, or a stem cell therapy, is legitimate. Goldberg recommended that patients considering a stem cell treatment consult a website, A Closer Look at Stem Cells, run by the International Society for Stem Cell Research and to check if the trial is affiliated with an academic medical center.

More information about this paper can be found here. You can read the paper here.

Makeit easy to keep up to date with more stories like this.Download theWZZM13 app now.

April Stevensis a multi-platform producer. Have a news tip? Emailnews@wzzm13.com, visit ourFacebook pageorTwitter.

2017 WZZM-TV

Read more from the original source:
3 women blinded after undergoing unproven stell cell 'therapy' - WZZM - WZZM13.com

Strategy shift: Stem cell research uses donor cells to cut tumor risks … – Genetic Literacy Project

Scientists can create [induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells] from any cell in the body. [But while they]can be reprogrammed to become any type of cell, from skin to liver to nerve cells,[iPS cells] can also give rise to potentially dangerous mutations, possibly including ones that lead to cancerous tumors. Thus, iPS cells are a double-edged swordBut now Japanese researchers are trying a different approach.

When Kyoto University researcher Shinya Yamanaka announced in 2006 that his lab had created iPS cells from mouse skin cells for the first time, biologists were stunnedA decade after the Yamanaka teams groundbreaking discoveries, however, iPS cells have retreated from the headlines.

All eyes, however, are back on Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, which is resuming its retina trialthis time with iPS cells from donors instead of cells from patients themselves.Using the Cell Research and Application (CiRA)s bank of iPS cells, there are significant time and cost savingsit could be one fifth the cost of cell preparation and patient transplant or less.

Regenerative medicine and drug discovery are the two key applications for iPS cells, Yamanaka says. With the use of iPS cell stock, we are now able to work quicker and cheaper, so thats the challenge going forward.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:Waiting to Reprogram Your Cells? Dont Hold Your Breath

Go here to read the rest:
Strategy shift: Stem cell research uses donor cells to cut tumor risks ... - Genetic Literacy Project

Two more retractions for stem cell researcher appealing her dismissal – Retraction Watch (blog)

Susana Gonzalez

Susana Gonzalez, a rising star in stem cell research, has had a rough year.

In addition to being fired from her former research institute (which she is now appealing), one of her grants (totaling nearly 2 million Euros) was suspended. Most recently, she has received two new retractions in Nature Communications over figure duplications and missing raw data. By our count, she has a total of three retractions.

Both of the new noticessay the papers contained figures duplicated in other papers by Gonzalez, and neither includes Gonzalez among the list of co-authors who agreed to the retraction.

Gonzalez was dismissed from her position at the National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC) in Spain last February over allegations of misconduct. According to the head of basic research at CNIC, Gonzalez is still embroiled in a legal battle with the Centerover her dismissal. Vicente Andrscould not go into detail because of the ongoinglitigation, but he told us:

I can only confirm that the court has decided in favor of CNIC and upheld the sacking of Dr. Gonzalez, but the decision is not final and is being appealed.

The legal proceedings appear to have prompted Gonzalezs first retractionof a 2012 paper, which we reportedlast month, after Cell Cyclebecame aware of certain irregularities in several figures, according to the notice:

We have been advised that, during the course of an internal inquiry and subsequent legal proceedings, corresponding author Dr. Susana Gonzalez was not able to provide original raw data or laboratory notes for any of the experiments represented in these figures to explain or justify the results reported in the article.

Similar concerns with image duplication and missing raw data have continued to plague Gonzalez in these two new retractions in Nature Communications. Antonio Herrera-Merchan, a former postdoctoral researcher in Gonzalezs lab at CNIC who co-authored the Cell Cycle paper and one of the two newly retracted papers in Nature Communications, told us he does not know what happened to the raw data after he left the lab at the end of 2013 for a new position:

I dont know why Susana was unable to supply raw data. This is a question for her.

All the experiments that I performed, original data and lab note, were [left] in CNIC.

Herrera-Merchan describedhow the lab workedwhile he was there, specifically how Gonzalez designed experiments and stored data (we translated his e-mail from Spanish to English using One Hour Translation):

Susana and I met to discuss how to do the experiments. I did them and the data were stored in general folders in each computer (next to the cytometer, to the qPCR) and the CNIC (Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research) specifically connected to each laboratory and made back-up copies every 24 hours. Both Susana and I had access from the computer we each had in our workplace to these folders. I also had a copy in the computer that the CNIC provided in my workplace of all the data produced.

I also took notes and kept my results in laboratory notebooks.

I left both these data and the laboratory notebooks in the CNIC when I left. The CNIC also prevented me from taking these documents.

Herrera-Merchan left the lab for a new position at the University of Granada at the beginning of 2014. He addedthat he played norole in writing orpreparing the papers:

Regarding the editing, writing and design of the articles, Ive never been involved in the editing, writing or selection of images, nor have I ever been sent a draft for an article for review prior to sending it to the journal.

We emailed Gonzalez, but did not hear back. We askedJose F. de Celis, head of theCentre for Molecular Biology Severo Ochoa (CBMSO), where Gonzalez currentlyworks, if he had any updates since we last spoke to him in February. He told us:

I do not have any additional information. Her position is at CBMSO and she is on sick leave.

Heres the retraction notice for Ectopic expression of the histone methyltransferase Ezh2 in haematopoietic stem cells causes myeloproliferative disease published in 2012andcited 67 times, according toClarivate Analytics Web of Science, formerly part of Thomson Reuters:

We the authors are retracting this Article as it has come to our attention that there has been inappropriate duplication of images between different figures of the published paper, and between figures in the paper and those in work previously published by the corresponding author (Arranz et al., 2012, Herrera-Merchan et al., 2010). The figure panels affected are Figs 2c, 3d, 4e, 5g, 7a, Supplementary Figs 2b, 3b and 5d. The corresponding author, S. Gonzalez, was unable to supply a complete set of raw data on which the Article is based. The Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares Carlos III and the first author A. Herrera-Merchan, together with the co-authors L. Arranz, J.M. Ligos, A. de Molina and O. Dominguez, agree with retraction of the Article.

Arranz, L. et al. Bmi1 is critical to prevent Ikaros-mediated lymphoid priming in hematopoietic stem cells. Cell Cycle 11, 6578 (2012).

Herrera-Merchan, A. et al. miR-33-mediated downregulation of p53 controls hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal. Cell Cycle 9, 32973305 (2010).

Heres the retraction notice for Bmi1 limits dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure by inhibiting cardiac senescence published in 2015 and cited five times:

We the authors are retracting this Article as it has come to our attention that there has been inappropriate duplication of images between different figures of the published paper, and between figures in the paper and those in work previously published by the corresponding author (Hidalgo, I. et al. 2012). The figure panels affected are Figure 1d, Figure 3c, Figure 4e, Figures 6a, g, and Supplementary Figure 1b. The corresponding author, S. Gonzalez, was unable to supply a complete set of raw data on which the Article is based. The Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares Carlos III and the first author I. Gonzalez-Valdes, together with the co-authors I. Hidalgo, A. Bujarrabal, E. Lara-Pezzi, L. Padron-Barthe, P. Garcia-Pavia, Pablo Gmez-del Arco, J.M. Redondo, J.M. Ruiz-Cabello, L.J. Jimenez-Borreguero, J.A. Enriquez, J.L. de la Pompa, and A. Hidalgo, agree with retraction of the Article.

Hidalgo, I. et al. Ezh1 is required for hematopoietic stem cell maintenance and prevents senescence-like cell cycle arrest. Cell Stem Cell 11, 649662 (2012).

Several of Gonzalezs other papers have been questioned on PubPeer.Leonid Schneider has also coveredGonzalezs retractions and legal battle.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making atax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow uson Twitter, like uson Facebook, add us to yourRSS reader, sign up on ourhomepagefor an email every time theres a new post, or subscribe to ourdaily digest. Clickhere to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what were working on,click here.

View post:
Two more retractions for stem cell researcher appealing her dismissal - Retraction Watch (blog)