Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

A tenure-track investigator at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), a division of the National Institutes of Health, resigned in March, as questions mounted about her work, Retraction Watch has learned. 

Jennifer Martinez has retracted at least two papers, including a 2016 Nature paper with the chair of the immunology department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., and has another marked with an expression of concern.  

The retraction is the first for Douglas R. Green of St. Jude, although he’s had a handful of corrections and two other papers he published in Nature have been questioned by scientists who couldn’t replicate the results. 

After a postdoc at St. Jude, Martinez led an independent research program at NIEHS in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina since 2015, according to an online CV. She resigned from NIEHS in March and a federal research watchdog is looking into her work, a spokesperson told us:

Dr. Martinez is no longer with NIH. She retracted some of her papers and resigned in March of 2022. The HHS Office of Research Integrity is conducting a review of her work.

The retracted Nature article, “Noncanonical autophagy inhibits the autoinflammatory, lupus-like response to dying cells,” was published in April 2016, and has been cited 267 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, making it a highly cited paper. 

The authors published a correction in September 2016 that noted an image had been “inadvertently duplicated,” after commenters on PubPeer pointed out similarities in the image. 

The retraction notice called out two additional figures as problematic: 

The authors wish to retract this article for the following reason: An institutional investigation has concluded that Figs. 1b and 2e are unreliable and that much of the additional data in the paper cannot be reliably verified from records. Together, these issues decrease confidence in the integrity of the experimental findings reported. The authors sincerely apologize to the scientific community for any confusion and any unintended harm derived from the publication of this paper. All authors agree to the retraction of this article.

We asked a Springer Nature spokesperson which institution had found issues with the paper, and were told we “may wish to contact the authors” for more information beyond the retraction notice.  

We were unable to find a current affiliation for Martinez. When we reached out to Green for comment, we received a reply from a St. Jude spokesperson that she was “looking into the matter.” She later confirmed in a statement that St. Jude had conducted an investigation into the work of a former employee: 

Scientific integrity is vital to the heart of the research process and instrumental to advancing treatment for catastrophic pediatric diseases. It is a core value at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. After receiving an allegation about the work of a former St. Jude employee, the St. Jude Office of Research Integrity initiated an investigation into potentially unreliable data in a research paper. The institution shared its substantiated findings regarding that work with relevant coauthors, four scientific journals, and the Office of Research Integrity at the National Institutes of Health. The unreliable data is an aberration of the excellent patient care and academic research at St. Jude.

According to a 2016 press release from St. Jude touting the Nature publication, Martinez was a postdoc in Green’s lab when the work was done. 

Two of Martinez’s other papers without Green have been flagged for questionable data. A 2018 Nature letter, “Parkin and PINK1 mitigate STING-induced inflammation,” received the following editor’s note last June: 

We wish to alert readers to the fact that concerns have been raised regarding the data presented in Fig. 3a–c of this Letter, which we are investigating. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.

That paper has been cited 526 times, making it a highly cited paper. More than 180 of those citations came since the editor’s note was posted. 

Editors of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology retracted a 2020 paper on which Martinez was the final and corresponding author, “Noncanonical autophagy in dermal dendritic cells mediates immunosuppressive effects of UV exposure,” after the authors reported some of the data had been falsified “by inappropriately selecting and excluding measurements … to falsely represent statistical significance,” according to the retraction notice: 

This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors after the authors informed them of substantive errors in some of the reported methods, results and conclusions that affect the reliability of the results.

The authors have provided the following statement regarding the data in question, that affected Figures 2A, 2E, and 6A.

Falsification of ear thickness data by inappropriately selecting and excluding measurements between wildtype and different transgenic mice (Rubicon-/-, Ulk1-/-, Cd11c-Cre+ Rubiconflox/flox) receiving DNFB treatment with or without pre-exposure to UV to falsely represent statistical significance:

· Figure 2A, in JACI 2020, line plot indicating ear swelling of Rubicon+/+ and Rubicon-/- mice sensitized and elicited with DNFB (DNFB only) or pre-exposed to UV followed by DNFB sensitization and elicitation (UV+DNFB).

· Figure 2E, in JACI 2020, line plot indicating ear swelling of Ulk1+/+ and ULK1-/- mice sensitized and elicited with DNFB (DNFB only) or preexposed to UV followed by DNFB sensitization and elicitation (UVDNFB).

· Figure 6A, in JACI 2020, line plot indicating ear swelling of Rubiconflox/flox and Cd11c-Cre+ Rubiconflox/flox mice sensitized and elicited with DNFB (DNFB only) or pre-exposed to UV followed by DNFB sensitization and elicitation (UV+DNFB).

That paper has been cited nine times.

In Brief Communications Arising, scientists have reported being unable to replicate the results in two of Green’s other papers in Nature: “Non-apoptotic role of BID in inflammation and innate immunity” from 2011, which has been cited 82 times, and “Enhanced bacterial clearance and sepsis resistance in caspase-12-deficient mice” from 2006, which has been cited 257 times. (BCAs here and here.)

The 2006 paper was corrected in 2013 after an investigation by McGill University found two figures had been “intentionally contrived and falsified,” we reported at the time. First author Maya Saleh had been based at McGill, and was also the final and corresponding author on the 2011 Nature paper with reproducibility concerns. 

Saleh, Green, and their coauthors had to correct their reply to the BCA for the 2011 paper after they introduced errors into a figure “by inadvertently removing five data points… when we were asked to provide a higher-resolution version at the production stage.”

Several of Green’s other papers have comments on PubPeer identifying similarities between images, and at least two have been corrected after such comments were posted. 

“LC3-Associated Endocytosis Facilitates β-Amyloid Clearance and Mitigates Neurodegeneration in Murine Alzheimer’s Disease,” published in Cell in 2019, on which Green was the corresponding author, was corrected in 2020. It has been cited 177 times, making it a highly cited paper. 

“Inducible dimerization and inducible cleavage reveal a requirement for both processes in caspase-8 activation,” published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in 2010, on which Green was the final author, was corrected in 2014, and has been cited 144 times.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website per the terms of our privacy policy: https://retractionwatch.com/privacy-policy/ *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.