RETRACTION: Extensive degradation of myelin basic protein isoforms by calpain following traumatic brain injury.

Retraction: M. C. Liu, V. Akle, W. Zheng, J. Kitlen, B. O'Steen, S. F. Larner, J. R. Dave, F. C. Tortella, R. L. Hayes, and K. K. W. Wang, "Extensive Degradation of Myelin Basic Protein Isoforms by Calpain Following Traumatic Brain Injury," Journal of Neurochemistry 98, no. 3 (2006): 700-712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03882.x. The above article, published online on 19 June 2006, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Andrew Lawrence; the International Society for Neurochemistry; and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. A third party reported that they had detected evidence of image manipulation and duplication throughout the published article. An investigation by the publisher and the editors concluded that there was evidence of splicing in Figures 2a, 2b, 3a, 5a, 6a, and 8a. The investigation also found duplications of lanes in Figures 3a, 3d, and 4a. Lastly, the investigation found that the same actin blots in Figure 3 have been used in two other articles by many of the same authors, despite representing different experimental conditions. The authors did not respond to an inquiry by the publisher. The retraction has been agreed to because the results presented in the article can no longer be considered reliable. The authors did not respond to the notice of retraction.

《-》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

RETRACTION: Reduction of Nuclear Y654-p-β-Catenin Expression Through SH3GL2-Meditated Downregulation of EGFR in Chemotolerance TNBC: Clinical and Prognostic Importance.

S. Islam, H. Dasgupta, M. Basu, A. Roy, N. Alam, S. Roychoudhury, C. K. Panda, "Reduction of Nuclear Y654-p-β-Catenin Expression Through SH3GL2-Meditated Downregulation of EGFR in Chemotolerance TNBC: Clinical and Prognostic Importance," Journal of Cellular Physiology 235, no. 11 (2020): 8114-8128. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.29466. The above article, published online on 20 January 2020, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), and has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Robert Heath; and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The journal received notice of concerns from a third party regarding duplications and rotation of images between Figures 2 C and 2 G in this article as well as concerns that Figures 2 F and 3 C had been re-used in a different article by some of the same authors (Islam, et al. 2020 [https://doi.org/10.1007/s13402-020-00525-5]). Additional investigation by the publisher also confirmed image duplications within Figure 4 F and between Supplementary Figures 1 C and 1 F in this article. In response to an inquiry by the publisher, the authors stated that the duplication between figures 2 C and 2 G was due to the fact that serial sections of tissue were analyzed. The authors acknowledged that the same samples had been used between this article and the article published in a different journal, but reported that they had mislabeled the samples in the other article. Lastly, the authors stated that the duplications in Figure 4 F and between Supplementary Figures 1 C and 1 F were caused by a mistake during figure preparation. The parties agree that the explanation does not account for the multiple duplications and rotations of images both within this article and between this article and the article published in another journal. The parties also agree that the original data as provided does not adequately support the authors' explanation. The retraction has been agreed to because the evidence of image duplication and manipulation fundamentally compromises the conclusions presented in the article. The authors disagree with the retraction.

《-》

RETRACTION: Rotenone Restrains the Proliferation, Motility and Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition of Colon Cancer Cells and the Tumourigenesis in Nude Mice via PI3K/AKT Pathway.

W. Xue, S. Men, and R. Liu, "Rotenone Restrains the Proliferation, Motility and Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition of Colon Cancer Cells and the Tumourigenesis in Nude Mice via PI3K/AKT Pathway," Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology 47, no. 8 (2020): 1484-1494. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1681.13320. The above article, published online on 13 April 2020, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Yang Yang; and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. A third party informed the publisher that images in Figures 3D, 6A, 6D and 7A were duplicated from other articles by different author groups, some of which were used in a different scientific context. The report also detailed duplicated images within this article between Figures 2A, 4C, and 5C. Additional investigation by the journal also detected duplications of images between figures 1H and 2E and between Figures 4E and 6F. The authors did not respond to an inquiry by the publisher regarding these concerns. The retraction has been agreed to because the evidence of image duplication across different articles, each of which describe different experimental conditions, as well as image duplication within the article, fundamentally compromises the editors' confidence in the conclusions presented. The authors did not respond to our notice regarding the retraction.

《-》

RETRACTION: Methylation-Dependent Transcriptional Repression of RUNX3 by KCNQ1OT1 Regulates Mouse Cardiac Microvascular Endothelial Cell Viability and Inflammatory Response Following Myocardial Infarction.

Y. Wang, X. Yang, A. Jiang, W. Wang, J. Li, and J. Wen, "Methylation-Dependent Transcriptional Repression of RUNX3 by KCNQ1OT1 Regulates Mouse Cardiac Microvascular Endothelial Cell Viability and Inflammatory Response Following Myocardial Infarction," FASEB Journal 33, no. 12 (2019): 13145-13160. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201900310R. The above article, published online on 18 October 2019, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Loren E. Wold, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The authors contacted the journal and requested withdrawal of their article due to incorrect data. Further investigation of the article by the publisher found that Figure 3D in this article was duplicated from other articles by different author groups, in which each was used in a different scientific context. Additionally, concerns have been raised by a third party regarding the veracity of the data expressed in Figures 2F, 3I, 5H, and 6H. The retraction has been agreed to because the evidence of image duplication across different articles, each of which describes different experimental conditions, fundamentally compromises the editors' confidence in the conclusions presented. The authors did not respond to our notice regarding the retraction.

《-》