Research integrity

Carol Prives, innocent victim of Susana Gonzalez’ data manipulations?

Recent news brought us yet another retraction of the Spanish zombie scientist Susana Gonzalez, formerly famous for her impactful ERC-funded research into stem cells and ageing. It is her fifth retraction (others here), and meanwhile Gonzalez is not even a zombie scientist anymore. She has no research group in her new Madrid institute, noone in Spain wants to work in the same building with her, in fact though she is still formally employed with the Spanish Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), it seems she stopped coming to work long ago, being on an endless sick leave. Even the European Research Council (ERC), usually most accommodating with research misconduct of their elite grant recipients, didn’t know what to do with Gonzalez suspended €2Mn grant and eventually terminated it.

The recent Gonzalez retraction at the  Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) is interesting in two aspects. First, Retraction Watch previously chastised the journal in a headline for allegedly refusing to investigate evidence of data manipulations in papers older than 6 years (read here). No reference is made to that “smear” accusation in the current Retraction Watch article on Gonzalez retraction.  But the second aspect is really much more intriguing. The retracted MCB paper, from Gonzalez period as postdoc at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, was coauthored by the US researcher Carol Prives, professor at the Columbia University in New York, and specialist for the cell cycle control protein p53:

Susana Gonzalez1, Carol Prives2 and Carlos Cordon-Cardo1

p73α Regulation by Chk1 in Response to DNA Damage

Mol. Cell. Biol. 2003 doi: 10.1128/MCB.23.22.8161-8171.2003

1Division of Molecular Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021
2Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027

The retraction note went:

“After publication, this article was found to have problematic figures. Digital experts have informed us that some of the published data in this paper were very likely digitally manipulated. This represents a major deviation from established scientific standards for publications, and therefore we retract this paper. We apologize for these errors”.

Well, who did those manipulations? The middle author Prives told the Spanish newspaper El Pais:

 “Other study’s co – author in the US, Carol Prives, head of a laboratory at Columbia University, did talk to us and recanted:  “I knew nothing about the experiments and manipulation of data in the study of González and others. And I’m convinced that Carlos Cordon-Cardo had absolutely nothing to do with making up data,” says Prives, who is also a world leader in basic cancer research. For this American scientifist, manipulation of study that she co-authored in 2003 is “obvious””.

Prof Prives, elected member of National Academy of Sciences and Fellow of AACR, now an innocent victim of other’s misconduct? Maybe. However, I was contacted by the well-known data integrity sleuth, the pseudonymous “Claire Francis“, whose evidence over years damaged or even stopped many cheater careers in science. Claire Francis alerted me to the evidence he (or she, if you prefer) posted on PubPeer regarding papers by Prives which Gonzalez had absolutely nothing to do with. In particular, Claire Francis sent me this evidence:

V. Gottifredi, S.-Y. Shieh, Y. Taya, C. Prives

p53 accumulates but is functionally impaired when DNA synthesis is blocked
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2001) doi: 10.1073/pnas.98.3.1036

Framed highlighting indicates duplicated gel lanes, or in some cases, just parts of the lanes. Arrows show splicing, where gel bands were digitally inserted into the image. More on PubPeer.

There are more issues in this paper and there are more Prives papers flagged on PubPeer. The list includes yet another MCB paper from Prives lab, Li et al 2009, where gels were assembled from pieces in a most inappropriate fashion:

The upper cycG1 gel bands for the lanes 5 to 11 were apparently cut out and replaced by other bands (a bit clumsily, the new bands are shifted in respect to the original gel). Why? This and more on PubPeer

Again, same journal MCB, same first author Gottifredi, again from Prives lab, Gottifredi et al 2001:

The highlighted lanes for Chk2 seem duplicated. This and more on PubPeer.

There are more papers by Vanesa Gottifredi (now group at Fundación Instituto Leloir in Buenos Aires, Argentina) on Pubpeer, some with Prives, some without. Did Prives know of those things? She seemed rather naive with Gonzalez, so who knows.

This paper Kass et al 2007, in Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) has neither Gonzalez nor Gottifredi on it, but Prives is again last and corresponding author:

As PubPeer users noted, it is not only the lower actin panel which seems duplicated between two panels showing completely different transgenic cell lines. The top HA panel are also strangely similar, like different exposures of same gel. Source PubPeer.

There is plenty more suspiciously spliced gels from Prives lab at Columbia University (e.g., Gaiddon et al JBC 2007 or  Okamoto et al, Molecular Cell 2002), or those with suspected image duplications like Daftuar et al PLOS One 2013, or with such obvious duplications standing in for two different transgenic cell lines in Karni-Schmidt et al Oncogene 2007:

Question is now: did NAS Member Prives know anything about these suspected manipulations in her lab’s papers? And how will journals act on the evidence?

Spanish media however might be well advised to stop beating the dead horse of data manipulation of the finished-off zombie Susana Gonzalez and focus on the neglected problems with the Iberian research, as evidenced by publications of Pura Munoz-Canoves, Sonia Melo, Manel Esteller and of course Maria Pia Cosma. Those are just select Iberian elite scientists featuring on my site, PubPeer has much more.


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 (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!


10 comments on “Carol Prives, innocent victim of Susana Gonzalez’ data manipulations?

  1. None of them is innocent at all


  2. Quite right!


  3. Senior author of 2003 Mol Cell Biol paper retracted in 2017, Cordon-Cardo C, as penultimate author.

    Oncogene. 2003 Aug 14;22(34):5298-305.
    Tumor suppressor role for myopodin in bladder cancer: loss of nuclear expression of myopodin is cell-cycle dependent and predicts clinical outcome.
    Sanchez-Carbayo M1, Schwarz K, Charytonowicz E, Cordon-Cardo C, Mundel P.
    Author information
    Division of Molecular Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, NY 10021, USA.

    Click to access 1206616a.pdf

    Figure 3b. Myopodin panel. Lanes 4 and 5 much more similar than you might expect to horiztonally stretched versions of lanes 2 and 3.


  4. Oncogene. 2003 Aug 14;22(34):5298-305.
    Figure 3b.


  5. You got to make a post on this group led by a famous lady professor. You will be excited to find a fake princess of research. and


  6. The Kass 2007 paper “duplication” isnt there in the actual paper. Click on the link and look at Figure 5a – the two actin panels look completely different. Not sure why that one is included, it weakens the argument.


  7. Pingback: Blagosklonny’s lawyer threatens me to love Oncotarget or else – For Better Science

  8. “V. Gottifredi, S.-Y. Shieh, Y. Taya, C. Prives

    p53 accumulates but is functionally impaired when DNA synthesis is blocked
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2001) doi: 10.1073/pnas.98.3.1036”

    Figure 4. Much more similar (after horizontal flip) and different than expected.

    Such a disgrace that PNAS has allowed this paper become sedimentary rock!

    As they say, who needs Russian hackers when you’ve got PNAS (the enemy within)?


  9. J Virol. 1999 Feb;73(2):1427-37. doi: 10.1128/JVI.73.2.1427-1437.1999.
    Polyomavirus large T antigen induces alterations in cytoplasmic signalling pathways involving Shc activation
    V Gottifredi 1, G Pelicci, E Munarriz, R Maione, P G Pelicci, P Amati

    1Sezione di Genetica Molecolare, Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Cellulari ed Ematologia, Istituto Pasteur-Fondazione Cenci Bolognetti, Università di Roma La Sapienza, 00161 Rome, Italy.
    PMID: 9882348 PMCID: PMC103967 DOI: 10.1128/JVI.73.2.1427-1437.1999

    Figure 1. Much more similar after horizontal flip than expected.

    See also:


  10. J Biol Chem . 2004 Feb 13;279(7):5802-10. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M310373200. Epub 2003 Nov 3.
    Decreased p21 levels are required for efficient restart of DNA synthesis after S phase block
    Vanesa Gottifredi 1, Kristine McKinney, Masha V Poyurovsky, Carol Prives
    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA.
    PMID: 14597617 DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M310373200

    Problematic data figure 1A. Much more similar than expected.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: