Forged research claims undermine key Alzheimer’s theories

The claim that some of the major 2006 studies of Alzheimer’s disease may have been made has shaken the research community and questioned the validity of the influential results of the study.

Science magazine He said Thursday that evidence was revealed that images of a well-cited study published in the journal Nature 16 years ago may have been made a doctor.

The findings show skepticism about the work of Sylvain Lesné, a neuroscientist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, and his work, towards specific aggregates of proteins as promising targets for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Raised interest in. Lesne did not respond to NBC News’ request for comment and did not provide comment to Science magazine.

Science said it had found more than 20 “suspicious” treatises by Lesne and identified more than 70 possible cases of image tampering in his work. Whistleblower Dr. Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University, expressed concern last year about the possibility of manipulating images in multiple treatises.

Karl Herap, a professor of neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh Brain Institute who was not involved in the study, said the findings were “really bad for science.”

“It’s not shameful to be wrong in science,” said Herap, who also works at the school’s Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. “Most of the best science was done by proving that people were wrong, first if they were wrong, and then why they were wrong. It is fraud that is completely toxic to science. “

For decades, the main theory has stated that amyloid beta protein formed sticky plaques in the brain, the main cause of Alzheimer’s disease.

A 2006 study in nature identified a protein subtype, Aβ * 56, or “amyloid beta star 56,” as the cause of memory loss in rats.

Donna Wilcock, vice president of biomedicine at the University of Kentucky, said the treatise caused a “big leap at the time.”

However, according to experts such as Wilcock, who reviewed the images of science, the images of the paper and images of other studies on Aβ * 56 by Lesne show the role of proteins in the progression to Alzheimer’s disease. He said he found evidence that he was made a doctor to inflate.

Other researchers have expressed concern about the inability to reproduce Lesne’s results. This is an important part of the scientific process to validate a particular finding.

“In my own work, [Aβ*56] Dr. Thomas Wisnievsky, a professor of neurology at New York University’s Alzheimer’s Disease Center, said:

Wisnievsky, who was not involved in the investigation, said he saw the image on Monday and saw “evidence that looks like copy and paste” to create a composite image.

Wilcock said he also noticed a small area of ​​the image that appeared to be “selectively emphasized.”

Dr. Karen Ash, a neuroscientist and professor at the University of Minnesota, who co-authored the 2006 treatise, said he hopes to withdraw the entire study because of the loss of confidence in the study. However, he also insisted on withdrawal. He “does not question the amyloid beta hypothesis.”

“I’ve been working for decades to understand the causes of Alzheimer’s disease, so I can find better treatments for my patients. A colleague may have misunderstood me and the scientific community through an imaging doctor. Discovering that is devastating, “she said. E-mail statement.

Kat Dodge, a spokesman for the University of Minnesota School of Medicine, said the university is aware of the questions surrounding the study published by Lesne and Ash.

“The university will follow that process and consider the questions raised by the allegations,” she said in a statement provided to NBC News on Monday.

Nature issued Publisher’s note On July 14, he said he was investigating concerns about the 2006 paper and said that “further editorial action will continue as soon as possible.”

Through the National Institutes of Health, over $ 1 billion in government funding has been directed to research on amyloid-related Alzheimer’s disease. The study suggests that Aβ * 56 studies should be opened to new scrutiny, but experts said the theory as a whole should not be distrusted.

“In order to specifically reproduce this work in other models, other groups need to do more work,” Wisnievsky said.

Herup said that Lesne’s work wasn’t the only one that influenced the direction of Alzheimer’s disease research over the last two decades.

“There were many other forces driving the conceptualization of illness,” he said.

However, experts said such incidents could cause enormous damage to scientists and the wider research community.

“It really undermines and erodes public confidence in the scientific process,” Wilcock said. “That’s what makes me the most anxious and upset as a scientist.”