News Research integrity Uncategorized

Sonia Melo case: PhD advisor Esteller sham-investigated, postdoc PI Kalluri with $ 80Mio COI

Sonia Melo, Portuguese cancer researcher and recipient of the prestigious EMBO Installation Grant, now has her publications investigated by EMBO for suspected image manipulations. Her current and former research institutions are apparently actively avoiding any attempts to scrutinise her papers, some due to very heavy financial conflicts of interest. Yet my information suggests that Melo’s former PhD advisor and co-author, Manel Esteller, is being presently investigated by his research centre in Barcelona.

Melo already had to retract a first-author publication from her PhD period with Esteller from the journal Nature Genetics. The retraction notice admits image duplications:

“We have recently become aware of the presence of duplicated images in the Figures 3 and 4 and Supplementary Figures 5 and 6 in our publication Nat. Genet. 41, 365–370, 2009, that were assembled according to the specified author contributions. We therefore retract the publication for the sake of the high standards we expect for research and scientific journals. All the authors have signed this statement”.

1skhskq

Melo herself told RetractionWatch:

“As for further comments/concerns, which arose on PubPeer, the authors and respective institutions have not ignored them. All concerns were addressed, raw data registered on notebooks was analysed and reports developed for each case. The data was shown to be correct so no further action was taken”.

It appears, she spoke the truth. These are three important stations of Melo’s career in academic research institutions, and none of them is apparently interested in taking a closer look at her papers:

  1. IPATIMUP, University of Porto

Here, Melo has only recently established her own research lab, at the Instituto de Patologia e Imunologia Molecular da Universidade do Porto (Ipatimup). The Ipatimup scientists and directors remained unresponsive to my inquiries. One could therefore speculate that Melo’s research is not being investigated there. Why? Generally, scientists under ongoing investigation do not communicate with media, they are often specifically forbidden to do so.  Yet Melo was able to freely share her views with RetractionWatch, even to publicly declare the absence of institutional investigations at her current and former places of work.

 2. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Melo used to work as postdoctoral scientist at the lab of Raghu Kalluri, Chair of the Department of  Cancer Biology and specialist for exosome (extracellular secreted vesicles) research. Kalluri has five publications featuring Melo as first or second author listed on PubPeer, including in prestigious journals Nature and Cancer Cell. Here an example from the latter paper:

f5krhwn

However, also some other Kalluri papers, where Melo was not co-author, were flagged. Earlier corrections acknowledged inappropriate figure assembly which has happened “accidentally”, e.g. this LeBleu et al 2013 paper in Nature Medicine:

u8lucbj

Most importantly, there are reasons to worry that any MD Anderson investigation into Kalluri’s publications with Melo might be compromised by a large financial conflict of interest. Melo’s and Kalluri’s 2015 common paper in Nature is the basis of an $80 million investment into a biotech company Codiak Biosciences, as Forbes reports:

“The little company is announcing today it has raised $80 million in committed venture capital spread over two installments. Two venture firms known for creating ambitious biotech companies, ARCH Venture Partners and Flagship Ventures, pieced it together to build on exosome biology from the lab of Raghu Kalluri at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex. Fidelity Management and Research, the Alaska Permanent Fund and Alexandria Venture Investments joined the financing […]

The initial focus of Codiak will be pancreatic cancer. It’s a notoriously tough-to-treat cancer, and it’s often diagnosed late in the game. People usually only have a few months to live after diagnosis. The company will seek to build on research Kalluri’s team published in Nature in June. At that time, Kalluri said his team had identified a proteoglycan (a protein covered with lots of carbohydrate molecules) called Glypican-1, which was present on the surface of exosomes.  […]

Gillis [managing director at Arch Venture Partners, -LS] said Kalluri’s group has generated more data from animal tests, which hasn’t yet been published. “It’s about being able to target various oncogene targets that have previously failed to be targetable via small molecules,” Gillis said. Kalluri, he said, “has gotten some dramatic data in animal models. If we can rapidly exploit that clinically, it would be a big win””.

How exactly is MD Anderson involved into Codiak Biosciences research on endosomes? According to information available to the industry news site FierceBiotech, rather directly:

“MD Anderson–which has been busily spinning out new biotechs–signed off on an IP [Intellectual Property Rights, -LS] license and a sponsored research agreement, keeping the big cancer center directly engaged in the R&D work ahead”.

In fact, Codiak Biosciences was apparently (officially or unofficially) founded by Raghu Kalluri himself, as the website GenomeWeb reports:

“The firm has licensed exosome-related technology that Kalluri developed at MD Anderson, including using the small, extra-cellular vesicles to deliver therapies and analyzing their nucleic acid and protein contents for diagnostic purposes”.

The other, official, company founder is none other than Eric Lander, president of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. Lander is a top scientist and also well versed in money issues: he was recently widely criticized for his article in Cell , where Lander attempted to exclusively assign the CRISPR discovery credit to his Broad Institute, which accidentally is also a key contender for the potentially billions-dollar worth patent on CRISPR genome editing technology.

Should this Nature paper (image below) or other Kalluri publications, especially those featuring Melo, be retracted, the big investors will likely lose trust in Codiak Biosciences and might be asking MD Anderson for their money back, with interest. Neither the Texan Cancer Center nor the biotech company can afford to be caught with wasting investors’ money on any questionable research, especially if tainted by misconduct and data manipulation.

y3qyeiz

Thus, Melo was probably telling the truth that MD Anderson decided not to investigate her publications with Kalluri. With $80 Million at stake, it was probably a financially very wise decision, maybe less so in the sense of academic research integrity.

 3. IDIBELL in Barcelona

Melo performed her PhD studies in the lab of Manel Esteller, director of strategic projects at the Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL). Three of Melo’s papers with Esteller were flagged on PubPeer. About the now retracted paper in Nature Genetics, Esteller announced on PubPeer in November 2015:

“Dear PubPeer Colleagues,

Thanks for your informative messages and insightful comments. I acknowledge the obviously serious nature of the case. The matter will be promptly and thoroughly investigated and appropriate action will be taken. The first author, that left the lab years ago, has been contacted to ask for a formal and detailed explanation. The conclusions will be disclosed in the journal and in this forum. I also take the opportunity to stress that the collaborators that coauthor the manuscript or myself as corresponding author have absolutely nothing to do with the issues raised.

As I have always done in my twenty-three years research career, truth and science should always come first.

Keep the good work,

Dr. Manel Esteller”

When asked about any institutional investigations happening, Esteller wrote to me in an email in December 2015:

“We do not have currently a formal ombudsman for this issues in our place, it is in the making”.

It seems now, Esteller himself will be the first case whom IDIBELL’s new Ombudsmen will be investigating.

Like Kalluri, he also has a number of problematic papers where Melo is not an author. Band duplication’s were suspected by PubPeer commenters in Esteller’s papers in Cancer Research, Oncogene and Nature Communications, like this here:

smkxhiv

Now, the director of IDIBELL, Jaume Reventós, wrote to me:

“As you know, since many years, Sonia Melo is not any longer in our institution and she is pursuing her career elsewhere. Concerning the publications in which Dr. Melo is not an author, I want to let you know that we will pursue our inquiry following our standard procedures for those matters.

We support a fair and clean science from our scientists and believe that fraud doesn’t not have place in our institution”. 

This on-going IDIBELL investigation might also explain why Esteller has not replied to my emails since. I asked Reventós for clarifications, but received none. My interpretation is then, that IDIBELL will not be investigating Melo’s papers from Esteller lab, since those are likely already being analysed by the EMBO commission, as EMBO director Maria Leptin announced. Instead, IDIBELL will probably focus their investigative efforts on other papers by Esteller, sans Melo, which were flagged on PubPeer. Thus, EMBO is seemingly indeed the only institution investigating Melo’s publications for suspected data manipulations.


Update 29.08.2016. In fact, the IDIBELL investigation of Manel Esteller’s work was a sham (hence correction to the title of this article). As described in my follow-up article, IDIBELL declared Esteller as not responsible for data integrity in his lab’s papers  and tasked him with investigating himself.

Recent news may explain such peculiar attitude of IDIBELL. There was a major financial COI hindering any attempt at investigation: just as MD Anderson with Kalluri, the Spanish institute has similar business interests with Esteller. Together with the also Barcelona-based pharma company Ferrer, Esteller has developed a cancer diagnostics test called EPICUP (see press release and The Lancet Oncology paper Moran et al 2016). A patent was filed in 2012 and approved in January 2016, the inventor is Esteller and the applicant is IDIBELL. Unlike with Kalluri and his Codiak Biosciences, Sonia Melo was not part of this research by Esteller and IDIBELL.


Donate!

If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like. Your generous patronage of my journalism, however small it appears to you, will greatly help me with my legal costs.

€5,00

62 comments on “Sonia Melo case: PhD advisor Esteller sham-investigated, postdoc PI Kalluri with $ 80Mio COI

  1. Pingback: Sonia Melo case: PhD advisor Esteller investigated, postdoc PI Kalluri with $ 80Mio COI |

  2. The Codiak link makes me wonder whether there isn’t room for civil lawsuits against MD Anderson for fraud (this may go beyond “losing trust” to “feeling defrauded”). Faking documents to obtain 80 Million is possibly even criminal.

    Like

  3. Accidental error when the IDIBELL Director Jaume Reventós used the double negative “doesn’t not”? Two negatives make a positive, and this is common in Portuguese and Spanish, so, was he really trying to say “We support a fair and clean science from our scientists and believe that fraud does have place in our institution”? Oh, the irony of the double negative!

    The University of Porto is one of Europe’s oldest and most reputable academic institutions, and most likely one of the premier ones in Portugal, alongside University of Coimbra, Lisbon University and Evora University, both in terms of historical reputation and academic excellence.

    If there is anything Portuguese hate more than a scandal, it’s a cover-up. So, if there is any hint at a cover-up or insufficient accountability or transparency, please report to other higher education authorities in Portugal, including the Rector of University of Porto.

    There are enough hints here for those wishing to follow-up:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_in_Portugal

    Like

  4. Melo / Esteller entries at PubPeer based on COPE member analysis.

    The following are all COPE member journals:

    Melo and/or Melo+Esteller
    Oncogene
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/20802525

    Cancer Cell
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/EB26CFF7EAE4F3E766EF305622527B
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/C729E05C2FCE20FCBF28D64F4B494F

    Nature
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/26106858

    Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/23274427
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/2971EE7D7625B040F9E6EC82E0B8EE

    PNAS
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/21368194

    Esteller (without Melo)

    The EMBO Journal
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/70F59BBD8E2CE2F8E24CE176A57615
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/15719023

    Nature
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/16357870

    Carcinogenesis
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/17449905

    Oncogene
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/18223687

    Nucleic Acids Research
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/23558747

    British Journal of Cancer
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/18087279

    Nature Communications
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/6359D689D6E4C8E6F8C7F5FEC310A4

    Clinical Cancer Research
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/19088041

    Carcinogenesis
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/16377805

    Molecular Cell
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/24582497

    Cancer Research
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/19861541

    Journal of Cell Science
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/19638407
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/12508111

    Non-COPE member journal queries (Esteller)

    RNA Biology
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/23611944

    Please observe the ratio of COPE to non-COPE member journals:
    21 : 1

    Like

    • What is the ratio supposed to signify?

      Do you even know how a chi-squared test is supposed to work? You need to supply expected values for your “ratio” to mean anything or be worth “observing”.

      Like

  5. Pingback: Sonia Melo loses EMBO YIP Funding – For Better Science

  6. Jonh Smith

    Honestly, I have been working at IDIBELL, and as Schneider said IDIBELL is never going to investigate Manel Esteller due to a heavy conflict of interest. Dr. Esteller is like a demigod over there, has brought millions of euros to the institution, he has the largest lab, and he is also a key figure in the establishment of the institution and politically well supported, with the information provided here an investigation will never go to anywhere.

    Like

  7. Pingback: Nuevas sospechas de fraude científico en España

  8. Pingback: Nuevas sospechas de fraude científico en España - Smart.cl - Smart Systems Ltda.

  9. Pingback: Nuevas sospechas de fraude científico en España | TECNOLOGIA Y NOTICIAS

  10. Pingback: Entretenimiento: Nuevas sospechas de fraude científico en España | Quitopolis

  11. Pingback: Nuevas sospechas de fraude científico en España - Puebla de Hoy |Noticias de Hoy

  12. Pingback: Kaudal Studio | Nuevas sospechas de fraude científico en España

  13. Pingback: Nuevas sospechas de fraude científico en España – Agibilis

  14. Pingback: Nuevas sospechas de fraude científico en España | Appeo Aplicaciones para Android y Apple

  15. Pingback: Cómo colar un estudio falso en una revista científica | Valor de cambio

  16. Red Hood

    Manel Esteller awarded with the Catalan National Award for Research:
    http://www.fundaciorecerca.cat/es/noticies_detall.asp?ID_noticia=1852

    Like

  17. anon anon

    Maybe all will be explained at this upcoming Keystone meeting:
    http://www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1382

    Like

  18. Pingback: Triplicated paper with multiplicated cells and images – For Better Science

  19. Pingback: “Los investigadores que se inventan los resultados no son científicos.” – Ciencia mundana

  20. Pingback: “Los investigadores que se inventan los resultados no son científicos” – Otras Voces en Educacion

  21. Given the way science works in Spain as it is visible by the Susana Gonzalez case, I would investigate specially the responsibility of the Spanish scientist Manel Esteller in the Sonia Melo/ Esteller/ Kalluri case.

    Liked by 1 person

    • There is still to much water to go under the bridge in what relates to the Brexit, but one of the things for sure British people would be happy for is not to have to contribute for funding grants such as the Susana
      Gonzalez ERC grant or Sonia Melo EMBO funding.

      Like

  22. Pingback: “¿Por qué la ciencia se iba a salvar de la crisis sistémica de valores y de la económica?” – Ciencia mundana

  23. Dodgy science is everywhere, in every country, science is very international nowadays…in Spain, in USA, Germany, China, Malaysia, UK….we just have to combat it….given the Brexit subject is in the order of the day I think governments from European countries should take the chance to find new ways for governing science in what concerns science integrity and publish, so that cases like Sonia Melo, Susana Gonzalez and other ones can be fairly solved with the adequate penalties so that science can become more fair…..in this point hopefully Leonid Schneider journalism work and his blog might a very good help.

    Like

  24. Dr. Schneider, another prize for the participants in the misconduct.
    http://www.ub.edu/web/ub/es/menu_eines/noticies/2016/07/059.html
    The take home message is “cheat and win”.

    Like

  25. Not surprising. Let’s just say Esteller has a number of papers that made untruthful or incompetent statements but are somewhat in the gray or ambiguous area so they weren’t targeted for investigation. These untruths add up, though, and really makes me wonder how his papers are being approved for publication. What happened to solid peer review? Then again, see below…

    Disclaimer: I am biased against Esteller due to the fact, as a peer reviewer, he rejected a paper submitted by my lab I used to work at, claiming the findings were not significant. We resubmitted the paper to another journal, which ended up having 100+ citations and a multitude of papers afterwards corroborating our findings and data. Needless to say, this made us question Esteller’s true expertise in his field. It is sad that he has so much influence in the scientific research community in Spain.

    Liked by 1 person

    • How do you know that Esteller served as the reviewer? Unless it was an open peer reviewed journal. Can you provide proof of your claim?

      Like

  26. Pingback: Manel Esteller, el "gato de Schrödinger" de Barcelona

  27. Pingback: Manel Esteller, el “gato de Schrödinger” de Barcelona | Ykaly

  28. Pingback: Manel Esteller, el “gato de Schrödinger” de Barcelona – Tecnologia

  29. Pingback: Manel Esteller, el “gato de Schrödinger” de Barcelona – Befreek

  30. Pingback: Manel Esteller, el “gato de Schrödinger” de Barcelona - Smart.cl - Smart Systems Ltda.

  31. Pingback: Manel Esteller, el “gato de Schrödinger” de Barcelona - LeoyOpino

  32. Pingback: Manel Esteller, el “gato de Schrödinger” de Barcelona | TECNOLOGIA Y NOTICIAS

  33. Pingback: Manel Esteller, el “gato de Schrödinger” de Barcelona | Vendetory Noticias

  34. Pingback: Manel Esteller, el “gato de Schrödinger” de Barcelona | Titulares de Chile

  35. For sure, the $ 80Mio COI Melo et al. 2015 (Kalluri lab) paper is not reproducible: Please, see my comments in https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/sonia-melo-loses-embo-yip-funding/comment-page-2/#comments

    Like

  36. Pingback: Manel Esteller, the Schrödinger cat of Barcelona – For Better Science

  37. Pingback: Formación del espíritu nacional. No con mi hijo. – Ideas sueltas de una afortunada

  38. Pingback: Sonia Melo fully exonerated and reinstalled as PI by her Portuguese employer I3S – For Better Science

  39. Pingback: Post-publication peer review of a multimillion-dollar-heavy Nature paper, by Ana Pedro – For Better Science

  40. Pingback: Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism: Research Misconduct Right Here in Bayou City? – Dr. Len Zwelling

  41. Relative to the link bellow:
    http://lenzwelling.com/2016/02/falsification-fabrication-and-plagiarism-research-misconduct-right-here-in-bayou-city/
    I did all the steps:
    1. I contacted the PI of my lab
    2. I was fired
    3. I contacted Nature
    4. I contacted RIO
    5. Is still missing waiting for the results of the labs attempting to reproduce the data both for GPC1/Melo et al., 2015 and Peinado et al., 2012

    Like

  42. Moreover, the exosome markers used in the following papers:

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/26106858
    https://pubpeer.com/search?q=david+lyden&sessionid=A10F9E6C2A2C4826719C&adv=none

    may not be considered the appropriate ones anymore as described in the following publication:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26858453

    Like

  43. Pingback: Tactic Or Strategy: Missiles Into Syria, DePinho Out Of Office – Dr. Len Zwelling

  44. Ana Pedro

    UPDATE relative to the comments above and realtive to the link above: Tactic Or Strategy: Missiles Into Syria, DePinho Out Of Office – Dr. Len Zwelling

    Recently, several papers were published that do not confirm at all the Melo GPC1 paper. Please, see: https://forbetterscience.com/2016/11/24/post-publication-peer-review-of-a-multimillion-dollar-heavy-nature-paper-by-ana-pedro/. Also, as I mentioned before my own original mass spectrometry data does not confirm the findings of Melo et al., 2015 GPC1 paper.

    If Dr. Kalluri will be investigated or not? Probably to start an investigation on Dr. Kalluri’ s work someone anonymously or not anonymously will have to make a complaint relative to misconduct on Dr. Kalluri’s lab to the MD Anderson RIO and provide very clear and irrefutable proofs of misconduct. I challenge those ones who may have those proofs to present them at the MD Anderson RIO.

    Finally, I am presently trying to rescue my unfortunately preliminary, although 100% data from my postdoc and waiting for the elife replication study of Peinado et al., 2012

    Like

  45. Ana Pedro

    UPDATE relative to the comments above and realtive to the link above: Tactic Or Strategy: Missiles Into Syria, DePinho Out Of Office – Dr. Len Zwelling

    Recently, several papers were published that do not confirm at all the Melo GPC1 paper. Please, see: https://forbetterscience.com/2016/11/24/post-publication-peer-review-of-a-multimillion-dollar-heavy-nature-paper-by-ana-pedro/. Also, as I mentioned before my own original mass spectrometry data does not confirm the findings of Melo et al., 2015 GPC1 paper.

    If Dr. Kalluri will be investigated or not? Probably to start an investigation on Dr. Kalluri’ s work someone anonymously or not anonymously will have to make a complaint relative to misconduct on Dr. Kalluri’s lab to the MD Anderson RIO and provide very clear and irrefutable proofs of misconduct. I challenge those ones who may have those proofs to present them at the MD Anderson RIO.

    Finally, I am presently trying to rescue my unfortunately preliminary, although 100% honest data from my postdoc and waiting for the elife replication study of Peinado et al., 2012

    Like

  46. Pingback: Consecuencias sociales de las anomalías científicas: el cientifismo | Periódico Alternativo

  47. Pingback: Consecuencias sociales de las anomalías científicas: el cientifismo – noticias de abajo

  48. Ana Pedro

    Polemic ideas about research funding and scientific career:

    no one should have an 100% research job
    no one should be paid just to perform research
    Postdocs must be abolished
    any scientist should have a job not necessarily related with research and should apply for research funding
    the results of any funded research should be openly-accessed and their application in society should be clearly visible

    Like

  49. Pingback: Consecuencias sociales de las anomalías científicas: el cientifismo - MAESTROVIEJO

  50. Pingback: Melo and Kalluri defend discredited Nature paper with preprint, where they admit data “adjustments” – For Better Science

  51. Pingback: Anil Sood and other questionable stars of MD Anderson – For Better Science

  52. Pingback: Zombie scientist Sonia Melo awarded by AstraZeneca – For Better Science

  53. Pingback: Janine Erler dossiers which ERC does not want – For Better Science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: