Haruko Obokata
The controversial work involved a mouse embryo injected with cells made pluripotent through stress.
Expand
A leading Japanese research institute has opened an investigation into a groundbreaking stem-cell study after concerns were raised about its credibility. 
The RIKEN centre in Kobe announced on Friday that it is looking into alleged irregularities in the work of biologist Haruko Obokata, who works at the institution. She shot to fame last month as the lead author on two papers1, 2 published in Naturethat demonstrated a simple way to reprogram mature mice cells into an embryonic state by simply applying stress, such as exposure to acid or physical pressure on cell membranes. The RIKEN investigation follows allegations on blog sites about the use of duplicated images in Obokata’s papers, and numerous failed attempts to replicate her results.    
Cells in an embryonic state can turn into the various types of cells that make up the body, and are therefore an ideal source of patient-specific cells. They can be used to study the development of disease or the effectiveness of drugs and could also be transplanted to regenerate failing organs. A consistent and straightforward path to reprogramming mature cells was first demonstrated in 2006, when a study showed that the introduction of four genes could switch the cells into an embryonic form known as induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells3. The introduction of genes, however, introduces uncertainties about the fidelity of the cells, and Obokata’s reports that the feat could be done so simply were met with awe, and a degree of scepticism (see 'Acid bath offers easy path to stem cells').

R

That scepticism deepened last week when blogs such as PubPeerstarted noting what seem to be problems in the two Nature papers and in an earlier paper from 20114, which relates to the potential of stem cells in adult tissues. In the 2011 paper, on which Obokata is first author, a figure showing bars meant to prove the presence of a certain stem-cell marker appears to have been inverted and then used to show the presence of a different stem-cell marker. A part of that same image appears in a different figure indicating yet another stem-cell marker. The paper contains another apparent unrelated duplication.
The corresponding author of that study, Charles Vacanti, an anaesthesiologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, told Nature that he learned only last week of a “mix up of some panels”. He has already contacted the journal to request a correction. “It certainly appears to have been an honest mistake [that] did not affect any of the data, the conclusions or any other component of the paper,” says Vacanti.
The problems in the two recent Nature papers, on both of which Obokata is a corresponding author (Vacanti is a co-author on both, and corresponding author on one), also relate to images. In one paper1, one of the sections in a genomic analysis in the first figure appears to be spliced in. In the other paper2, images of two placentas meant to be from different experiments look strikingly similar.