Leading Scientific Journal May Retract Groundbreaking Alzheimer’s Study

Renowned journal Nature may retract a landmark Alzheimer’s study published back in 2006 over allegations of image manipulation, Science reported. Lead author Karen Ashe, a neuroscientist at the University of Minnesota (UMN) Twin Cities, in a post on PubPeer, claimed “ultimate responsibility” and confirmed that “it is clear that several of the figures…have been manipulated.”

Speculation has swirled since a 2022 investigation by Science first reported the claims of image manipulation, but a potential retraction of the research was not announced until earlier this week.

Ashe’s study, authored with seven other researchers including fellow UMN neuroscientist Sylvain Lesné, hypothesized that Alzheimer’s is caused by an amyloid beta (Aβ) protein known as Aβ*56. Aβ proteins have long been thought to contribute to Alzheimer’s. Ashe’s study asserted that “Aβ*56 was present in mice genetically engineered to develop an Alzheimer’s-like condition, and that it built up in step with their cognitive decline. The team also reported memory deficits in rats injected with Aβ*56.”

It was a landmark publication in Alzheimer’s research, after which “funding for related work rose sharply.” It’s been cited in almost 2,500 other research works, which could make it the most-cited paper ever to be retracted, according to figures from Retraction Watch. It spurred the creation of various experimental drugs intended to rid the brain of amyloid proteins; each of those medications failed.

Science’s 2022 investigation alleged that key figures in the study were manipulated, as were other reports authored by Lesné. (Some of those studies also featured Ashe as a co-author.) In her blog post, Ashe claimed that she “had no knowledge of any image manipulations in the published paper until it was brought to my attention two years ago.”

She continued: “It is clear that several of the figures in Lesné et al. (2006) have been manipulated…for which I as the senior and corresponding author take ultimate responsibility.”

Lesné was the only author of eight who refused to agree to the retraction. Neither Ashe nor Lesné immediately responded to a request for comment from Men’s Journal.

The scandal has caused a rift in the scientific community between those who still believe Ashe’s hypothesis is viable and those who, after citing her and Lesné’s study to advance their own research, now wonder if there’s any truth to the findings whatsoever.

A UNM spokesperson told Science that the university “closed this review with no findings of research misconduct pertaining to these figures,” and Ashe’s blog post contends that “the manipulations did not change the conclusions of the experiments.”

But some aren’t satisfied with the investigations into the alleged manipulation. “It’s unfortunate that it has taken two years to make the decision to retract,” Donna Wilcock, a neuroscientist and editor of the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, told Science. “The evidence of manipulation was overwhelming.”

One researcher, who was not involved with Ashe’s study or the Science investigations, spoke with Men’s Journal on the condition of anonymity. They explained that the alleged manipulations led to a tunnel vision surrounding Alzheimer’s research that may have negatively impacted the field.

“Exaggerating the results led to amyloid being the star protein for causing Alzheimer’s, and all the research was focused solely on that, leaving out many other potential molecules and disease mechanisms from being explored,” they explained. “Now that this story has come out, researchers are finding other ‘star molecules’ and mechanisms that complete the Alzheimer’s story.”

They told us that this particular incident is “a symptom of a broken system” in academic research, where scientists often feel pressured to inflate the likelihood of their hypotheses for publication in a leading journal, such as Nature.

“If the percentage system of how good and solid your results are didn’t exist, and in turn the academic industry just looked at the implications and novelty of results—no matter how big or small—the problem of data fabrication might not exist.”

Nature, for its part, told Men’s Journal that “the Nature paper in question has not been retracted at this time,” adding that their investigation is ongoing. “We are nearing the end of our investigation and hope to share the outcome soon…I’m afraid at this time, we can’t confirm what action will take place.”