The Cardiff University in UK is now investigating two cancer researchers, both senior professors, for suspected scientific misconduct. The evidence was submitted by pseudonymous Clare Francis, I publish below the results of preliminary investigations. One of these two professors is Robert Nicholson, specialist in breast cancer, former director of Tenovus Centre for Cancer Research, now professor of Cardiff School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, celebrated on BBC in 2008 for discovering a therapy target for tamoxifen-resistant tumours. The other is Wen Jiang, professor of Surgery and Tumour Biology at Cardiff University School of Medicine specialising in metastatic solid tumours, Fellow of Royal Society of Medicine and chair of Cardiff China Medical Research Collaborative. Jiang also made it into BBC news in 2013, when he announced to have discovered a “formula”, “consisting of 14 herbs” from traditional Chinese medicine, to stop cancer metastasis.
The two great doctors Jiang and Nicholson made great promises to cancer patients. A preliminary investigation by Cardiff University now determined that those promises were based on duplicated images and cloned gel bands. Importantly, the committee also saw irregular splicing of gels as a problem, an issue many tend to dismiss. The traditional excuse goes that gel splicing was allegedly permitted until 2008 or so. In fact, irregular splicing of gels, where bits of different gels are assembled to look as it were one intact physical gel, was never permitted and always considered to be data manipulation. Especially where due to splicing the gel loading controls are proven not to match the analytic gels, the entire figure becomes meaningless. Or worse, it indicates research misconduct. This is not the first case of research misconduct Cardiff University and its School of Medicine have to deal with. In 2013, the School’s dean Paul Morgan stepped down after a misconduct investigation which acquitted him, but found his postdoc guilty of falsifying data in 4 papers. Clare Francis commented to me on the reasons for scrutinising papers by Nicholson and Jiang:
“My finding the present 2 was prompted by the 5th anniversary of my first complaints, i.e. last summer was 5 years after first complaining about Dean BP Morgan. I looked at who published in a similar field to BP Morgan in Cardiff, found RI Nicholson. I also looked at a person who published over 500 papers in Cardiff, found WG Jiang”.
The preliminary investigation was chaired by cell biologist Adrian Harwood, professor for neuroscience at School of Biosciences, and assisted by Alastair Sloan, Head of School of Dentistry. The two Cardiff academics were engaged tfor this task in late summer/early autumn 2017. Some of the analysed papers were quite old, around 15 years. Still, the committee determined them to contain duplicated data and referred the evidence to the main investigation. The results of all analysed papers were communicated to Clare Francis on February 5th 2018 in a transparent manner, which indicates that Cardiff University takes the issue very seriously.
After suspected image and gel band duplications as well as irregular gel splicing were confirmed in many instances for both Jiang and Nicholson, an external investigative committee was set up in Cardiff consisting of:
Judge Ray Singh (Independent Chair)
Professor Gavin Brooks (Pro Vice Chancellor Teaching and Learning, Reading University)
Professor Jeremy Guggenheim (School of Optometry & Vision Sciences, Cardiff University).
The full reports by the Harwood and Sloan preliminary investigation are here and here, below main excerpts, which I illustrate with annotated PubPeer evidence.
ARM 17/01: Report of Screening Panel Meeting held on 10 November 2017
5.1 Identification of Respondents
It was clarified that at this stage the allegations raised were levelled at all co-authors of each of the journal articles under scrutiny, and that the correspondence researchers for each publication had been asked to respond to the allegations. Professor Robert Nicholson had also his capacity as Head of the Research Group provided a context overview as a response to the allegations.
[…]
- Summary of Screening Panel’s Findings
Article 1 – Breast Cancer Res. 2011 Sep 22;13(5):R93. doi: 10.1186/bcr3018
Details of Allegations A number of issues raised with images including:
- Image duplication(the same data cannot represent two things)
- Image Compression
- Vertical stretch
- Degree rotation
Panel Finding The Panel found that there was evidence of non-attributed or unacknowledged image manipulation and splicing. The respondent acknowledged they have done this in their response but fail to acknowledge it is falsification of data. Some manipulation has inaccuracies. This is identified as poor lab practice.
Recommendation: Progress to Investigation Panel to determine if this was deliberate and the impact on the scientific argument
Details of Allegation Inappropriate splicing
Panel Findings: The panel upheld the allegation on the grounds of clear evidence of splicing
Recommendation Progress to Investigation Panel.
Article 3 – Endocrinology. 2003 Mar;144(3):1032-44.
Details of Allegations (a) Inappropriate splicing
(b) Vertical flipping of image (It cannot be paired with two different sets of data).
Panel Findings: (a) The Panel noted that it has been acknowledged by the corresponding author that image slicing had taken place. It was noted by the corresponding author that they did not feel that splicing was inappropriate and that this was standard practice in a lab. The Panel disagreed with that assertion feeling that splicing represented poor lab practice.
(b) The panel noted that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the allegation of vertical flipping
Recommendations 1. Progress to Investigation Panel to determine impact on the scientific argument (allegation (a))
- No further action was recommended with regard to allegation (b)
Details of Allegation Examples of inappropriate splicing
Same panels used to represent different cell types
Panel Findings: The Panel found that there was evidence of non-attributed or unacknowledged image manipulation and splicing. The respondent acknowledged they have done this in their response but fail to acknowledge it is falsification of data. Some manipulation has inaccuracies. This is identified as poor lab practice.
Recommendations Progress to Investigation Panel to determine impact on the scientific argument
Article 5 – Heregulin β1 drives gefitinib-resistant growth and invasion in tamoxifen-resistant MCF-7 breast cancer cells
Details of Allegations (a) Inappropriate splicing, vertical stretch
Panel Findings: (a) The Panel found that there was evidence of non-attributed or unacknowledged image manipulation and splicing. It was noted that reassembling spliced images in different orders means that not all findings can be accurate and it is therefore an Illustration of what the results should be rather than the accurate result.
Recommendations (a) Progress to Investigation Panel
Details of Allegations (b) Two very similar reviews
Panel Findings (b) No sufficient evidence to uphold this allegation
Recommendations (b) No further action was recommended
Article 6 – Endocrinology. 2003 Nov;144(11):5105-17. Epub 2003 Aug 7.
Details of Allegations Illogical pairing of images.
Panel Finding The Panel felt that there was evidence of misleading data due to pairing of images.
Recommendation: Progress to Investigation Panel
Article 7 –Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Feb;119(3):575-91. doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0355-8. Epub 2009 Mar 15.
Details of Allegations Double use of a Western blot
Panel Finding The Panel felt that there was evidence of duplication of an image. It was noted however that this could have been done in error with no intent to deceive and the figure was not central to the scientific case being promoted.
Recommendations 1. that tightening up of the scrutiny of manuscripts prior to submission should be recommended.
- that the University could issue an error item to the journal to address this.
- that no further action was required with regard to the allegation.
Article 8 – Endocr Relat Cancer. 2006 Dec;13(4):1085-99.
Details of Allegations Unidentifiable mark in gel
Panel Finding No sufficient evidence to uphold this allegation as there was no evidence to suggest intent to deceive and the figure was not central to the scientific case being promoted.
Recommendation: No further action was recommended
Article 9 – Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006 Mar;96(2):131-46. Epub 2005 Oct 27.Bidirectional cross talk between ERalpha and EGFR signalling pathways regulates tamoxifen-resistant growth.
Details of Allegations Splicing of images
Panel Finding The panel found that there was evidence of splicing in this image and while this was not deliberately misleading it represented poor practice and rendered the figure represented as meaningless.
Recommendation: Warrants further investigation into impact of misleading representation of data – Progress to Investigation Panel
Article 10 – Endocrinology. 2008 Oct;149(10):4912-20. doi: 10.1210/en.2008-0351. Epub 2008 Jun 26.
Details of Allegations Reuse of image – Horizontal flip and vertical stretch
Panel Finding The panel found that there was evidence of re-use of image and horizontal flip. This was indetified as poor practice and representation of misleading data.
Recommendation: Warrants further investigation into impact of misleading representation of data – Progress to Investigation Panel
Article 11 – Insulin-like growth factor-I receptor signalling and acquired resistance to gefitinib (ZD1839; Iressa) in human breast and prostate cancer cells. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2004 Dec;11(4):793-814.
Details of Allegations Vertical change in background
Panel Finding No sufficient evidence to uphold this allegation
Recommendation: No further action was recommended
- Conclusion
The Panel recommends to the Named Person:
- That a Formal Investigation Panel under section 6 of the Procedure be established to consider the relevant articles identified above [Articles 1, 2, 3a, 4, 5a, 6, 9 and 10];
- The screening panel recommends that in the scope of the investigation the quality assurance practices across the research group are investigated by the formal panel as the articles all relate to one research group;
- The Panel recorded its concern over the nature, volume and proliferation in the public domain of the allegations.
ARM 17/02: Report of Screening Panel Meeting held on 10 November 2017
5.1 Identification of Respondents
It was clarified that at this stage the allegations raised were levelled at Professor Wen Jiang who has been asked to respond to the allegations.
5.2 Allegations
It was confirmed that allegations in relation to 19 articles would be considered by the Panel;
The Panel was cognisant of the differences in practice across and within academic disciplines regarding the attribution of authorship rights; the role and responsibilities of lead, corresponding authors and the variability of the peer review process between different journals.
[…]
- Summary of Screening Panel’s Findings
Article 1 – Br J Surg. 2005 Mar;92(3):305-10.Interleukin 7 upregulates vascular endothelial growth factor D in breast cancer cells and induces lymphangiogenesis in vivo.
Details of Allegations Similarity of images – duplication
Panel Finding The Panel found that there was sufficient suspicion surrounding the similarity of the two highlighted images, and that further expert opinion would be required to determine if this was deliberate and the impact on the scientific argument.
Recommendations Warrants further investigation; progress to Investigation Panel.
Article 2- Oncogene advance online publication 10 July 2017; doi: 10.1038/ onc.2017.199 PDZK1 inhibits the development and progression of renal cell carcinoma by suppression of SHP-1 phosphorylation
Details of Allegations Similarity of images – duplication
Panel Finding The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to support this allegation
Recommendation: No further action was recommended
Article 3- Oncol Rep. 2011 Jul;26(1):237-45. doi: 10.3892/or.2011.1271. Epub 2011 Apr 18. Knockdown of human antigen R reduces the growth and invasion of breast cancer cells in vitro and affects expression of cyclin D1 and MMP-9.
Details of Allegations (a) Vertical Stretch
(b) Unexpected similarity of images
Panel Finding (a) The panel found that there was insufficient evidence to support this allegation
(b)The panel found that there was insufficient evidence of duplication in figure 5C however, there was sufficient evidence of duplication for figure 5A 
Recommendation: (a) No further action recommended
(b) Warrants further investigation; progress to Investigation Panel.
Article 4 – Oncotarget 2016 Mar 29;7(13):15378-89. Doi: 10.18632/ oncotarget.7463 Repulsive guidance molecule B inhibits metastasis and is associated with decreased mortality in non-small cell lung cancer.
Details of Allegations Splicing of image
Panel Finding The panel found that there was insufficient evidence to support this allegation
Recommendation: No further action recommended
Article 5 – Oncology Report, 2010, 24: 1653-9 Growth and differentiation factor-9 promotes adhesive and motile capacity of prostate cancer cells by up-regulating FAK and Paxillin via Smad dependent pathway.
Details of Allegations Similarity of images and over exposure
Panel Finding The panel found that there was evidence of manipulation of the images that supported the allegation
Recommendation: Warrants further investigation; progress to Investigation Panel.
Article 6 – J Urol, 2009, 181:2749, Fig 10C and 10D Epub 2009 Apr Bone morphogenetic protein-10 suppresses the growth and aggressiveness of prostate cancer cells through a Smad independent pathway.
Details of Allegations No images (figure 10C and 10D)
Panel Finding The panel found that there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation
Recommendation: Warrants further investigation; progress to Investigation Panel.
Article 7- IJO, 2013, 42: 1249-56, Fig 5. Candidate of metastasis 1 regulates in vitro growth and invasion of bladder cancer cells.
Details of Allegations Unexpected similarity of highlighted images
Panel Finding The panel found that there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation
Recommendation: Warrants further investigation; progress to Investigation Panel.
Article 8 – Lin Ye, BMP7, JUrol 2007 and Lin Ye HGF BMPR, IJO, 2007 Hepatocyte growth factor up-regulates the expression of the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) receptors, BMPR-IB and BMPR-II, in human prostate cancer cells.
Details of Allegations Sharing of some of the same data (double-dipping).
Panel Finding The Panel felt there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation raising a concern about the article being published without the journal’s permission.
Recommendation: Warrants further investigation; progress to Investigation Panel.
Article 9 – 2015 May 10;15:51. doi: 10.1186/s12935-015-0203-3. eCollection 2015. Knockdown of WAVE3 impairs HGF induced migration and invasion of prostate cancer cells.
Details of Allegations Unexpected similarity of images
Panel Finding The panel found that there was insufficient evidence to support this allegation
Recommendation: No further action recommended
Article 10 – Cancer Sci. 2010 Oct;101(10):2137-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01648.x. Epub 2010 Jul 1.Bone morphogenetic protein-10 (BMP-10) inhibits aggressiveness of breast cancer cells and correlates with poor prognosis in breast cancer.
Details of Allegations Spliced Image
Panel Finding The panel found that there was insufficient evidence to support this allegation
Recommendation: No further action recommended
Article 11 –BMC Cancer. 2014 Sep 27;14:723. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-723. Implication of metastasis suppressor gene, Kiss-1 and its receptor Kiss-1R in colorectal cancer.
Details of Allegations Unexpected similarity between highlighted images
Panel Finding The respondent has identified the images were duplicated in error in the publication. The Panel upheld that there had been duplication.
Recommendation: Progress to Investigation Panel to determine impact on the scientific argument and consider action required to address this issue.
Aricle 12 – Urol Oncol. 2008 Jul-Aug;26(4):386-91. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2007.06.003. Epub 2008 Jan 14. Phospholipase-C gamma-1 (PLCgamma-1) is critical in hepatocyte growth factor induced in vitro invasion and migration without affecting the growth of prostate cancer cells.
Details of Allegations Similarity of highlighted images
Panel Finding The panel found that there evidence to suggest that there was likely duplication of this image
Recommendation: Warrants further investigation; progress to Investigation Panel.
Article 13– Oncol Rep. 2015 Oct;34(4):1977-87. doi: 10.3892/or.2015.4162. Epub 2015 Jul 30. Inhibition of sphingosine-1-phosphate phosphatase 1 promotes cancer cells migration in gastric cancer: Clinical implications.
Details of Allegations Similarity of images
Panel Finding The respondent has identified the images were duplicated in error in the publication. The Panel upheld that there had been duplication.
Recommendation: Progress to Investigation Panel to determine impact on the scientific argument and consider action required to address this issue.
Article 14 – Int J Oncol. 2016 Mar;48(3):919-28. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2016.3339. Epub 2016 Jan 15. Importance of osteoprotegrin and receptor activator of nuclear factor κB in breast cancer response to hepatocyte growth factor and the bone microenvironment in vitro.
Details of Allegations Similarity of images
Panel Finding The panel found that there evidence to suggest that there was likely duplication of this image
Recommendation: Warrants further investigation; progress to Investigation Panel.
Article 15- Int J Mol Med. 2016 Nov;38(5):1349-1358. doi: 10.3892/ijmm .2016.2733. Epub 2016 Sep 13. Expression of the SOCS family in human chronic wound tissues: Potential implications for SOCS in chronic wound healing.
Details of Allegations Similarity of images
Panel Finding The panel found that there was insufficient evidence to support this allegation
Recommendation: No further action recommended
Article 16 – Eur J Cancer. 2004 Dec;40(18):2717-25. Loss of tight junction plaque molecules in breast cancer tissues is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with breast cancer.
Details of Allegations Similarity of images/Horizontal Flip
Panel Finding The panel found that there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation
Recommendation: Warrants further investigation; progress to Investigation Panel.
Articles 17 &18 – Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Jun 1;12(11 Pt 1):3510-7. Decreased pigment epithelium-derived factor expression in human breast cancer progression.
Shares data with:
Eur J Cancer. 2005 Dec;41(18):2819-27. Epub 2005 Nov 4. Placenta growth factor is over-expressed and has prognostic value in human breast cancer.
Details of Allegations Sharing data (double-dipping)
Panel Finding The panel found that there was insufficient evidence to support this allegation
Recommendation: No further action recommended
Article 19 – British Journal of Cancer (2014) 110, 421–429. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.712 www.bjcancer.com. Published online 3 December 2013. Death-associated protein-3, DAP-3, correlates with preoperative chemotherapy effectiveness and prognosis of gastric cancer patients following perioperative chemotherapy and radical gastrectomy
Details of Allegations Similarity of images some differences in the intensity and gaps between bands
Panel Finding The panel found that there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation
Recommendation: Warrants further investigation; progress to Investigation Panel.
- Conclusion
The Panel recommends to the Named Person:
- That a Formal Investigation Panel under section 6 of the Procedure be established to consider the relevant articles identified above [Articles 1, 3b, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14,16,19 ];
- The Panel recorded its concern over the nature, volume and proliferation in the public domain of the allegations.
Update 24.04.2018. The Cardiff University now issued a press release, where it declared the above evidence for Wen Jiang publications to be false allegations:
Allegations relating to research misconduct – 19/04/2018
“In recent months a number of allegations have emerged on social media and blog posts about research conducted by Professor Wen G. Jiang, notably on https://forbetterscience.com/2018/02/14/fried-divine-comedy-featuring-anti-cancer-cockroach-and-phallic-fungus/#more-23091
Some of these allegations, relating to research misconduct, were formally submitted to Cardiff University by an anonymous whistleblower.
Cases of research misconduct are rare at Cardiff University. However, when allegations are made they are considered in accordance with the University’s Procedure for Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct in Academic Research.
The University’s procedure is in line with guidance issued by the UK Research Integrity Office, to which the University subscribes.
The University has conducted a formal investigation into the allegations.
In all it reviewed allegations relating to 19 publications and has not upheld the allegations of misconduct.
Cardiff University reviews the research quality of all its academic staff as part of performance development reviews and ongoing preparations for the next national Research Excellence Framework (REF). Professor Jiang has been assessed by independent review as having research outputs of a standard eligible for submission to the next REF.
[…]”
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 (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!
€5.00
For Better Science 
It was noted that reassembling spliced images in different orders means that not all findings can be accurate and it is therefore an Illustration of what the results should be rather than the accurate result.
“Ekphrasis or ecphrasis, from the Greek for the description of a work of art produced as a rhetorical exercise,[1] often used in the adjectival form ekphrastic, is a vivid, often dramatic, verbal description of a visual work of art, either real or imagined.”
LikeLike
So they need to cite Virgil’s Aeneid, bk. 8, for the ecphrasis on the shield of Aeneas and then the spliced rubbish is OK.
LikeLike
“external investigative committee was set up in Cardiff consisting of:
Judge Ray Singh (Independent Chair)”
Judge Ray Singh is conflicted.
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/about/organisation/governance/council/council-members/ray-singh
“Judge Singh was appointed to serve on Cardiff University Council with effect from 1 August 2016.”
LikeLike
So at which point are the authors asked to produce the original data? That should settle things.
LikeLike
“Jiang also made it into BBC news in 2013, when he announced to have discovered a “formula”, “consisting of 14 herbs” from traditional Chinese medicine, to stop cancer metastasis.”
I hear his saying “16 herbs”.
The paper describing an in vivo model of Yangzheng Xiaoji (YZXJ), a traditional Chinese medical formula used in cancer treatment is this one:
https://www.spandidos-publications.com/or/30/3/1405
“The extract was standardised by quantifying the optical density of the preparation using a spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 405 nm.” For a multicomponent preparation I find it difficult to believe that such a measurement can distinguish the proportions of each component.
LikeLike
From the Proceedings of the 2015 China-UK Cancer Conference:
http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/36/3/1181.abstract
LikeLike
Turns out that of 31 papers in the Proceedings of the 2015 China-UK Cancer Conference, Wen G. Jiang co-authored 18 of them.
http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/36/3.toc
Cardiff University should have realised at that point that this yearly conference to which they contribute should really be called the Congress of Wen G. Jiang Studies.
LikeLike
One must probably read the journal name as “anti(cancer research)” rather than “(anticancer) research”.
LikeLike
Spandidos publications founded by Demtetrios Spandidos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrios_Spandidos
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-10-07/business/9610070181_1_oncogenes-natalie-angier-nobel-prize
“When a referee of Spandidos’ paper expressed astonishment at the sheer quantity of work that had been done in the previous year (and another person in his lab voiced concerns as well), Siminovitch counted the number of Petri dishes his lab had bought. He concluded they were far fewer than the number necessary to have performed the experiments Spandidos claimed had been done, asked to see the raw data (there was little)–and summarily fired his protege for cheating.”
Pubpeer entries for Demetrios Spandidos:-
1. 2016 retraction. https://pubpeer.com/publications/B657BAB5E08B48AE06A645E366618D
2. 2016 retraction https://pubpeer.com/publications/2BB4999FFAD13B640584B950954448
3. https://pubpeer.com/publications/58B5F56B04C8224EF89810BAE6671E
4. In one of Spandidos publications’ own journals https://pubpeer.com/publications/CA8D6411BDB33AFA9A8CE88B2F6A6F
LikeLike
“The extract was standardised by quantifying the optical density of the preparation using a spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 405 nm.”
The description varies. According to the Yiling Pharma patent (Google Translation from Chinese), “the degree of absorption at 405nm photometry, photometric absorption diluted extract to 0.25, referred to herein as DME25, Aliquot as a standardized extract backup.” It appears that the “0,25 optical density” is the source of the numerical part of the extract’s name.
The first account from Jiang et al., predating the patent application by a few months, was one of the chapters he co-wrote for a 2012 book he edited. The authors imply, without stating so explicitly, that they had performed the extraction themselves, rather than obtain a pre-processed herbal extract from the company. But they garble the details from the uncredited Yiling researchers:
<
blockquote>The extract was standardised by quantifying the optical density of the preparation using a spectrophotometer at wave length of 490 nm. The 1 in 20 diluted extract which gave 0.5OD was stocked as the master stock and so named as DME25 for the experiments.
<
blockquote>
Later papers refer readers to that chapter for details of the extraction, while correcting its errors.
The extract was standardised by quantifying the optical density of the preparation using a spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 405 nm. A master preparation of the extract which exhibited an OD of 0.25 was stocked as the master stock and so named as DME25 for the experiments.
But alternatively,
The extract was standardised by quantifying the optical density of the preparation
using a spectrophotometer at 450 nm wavelength. A master preparation of 1:1000 diluted extract which gave 0.25OD was stocked as the master stock and so named as DME25 for the experiments.
A 2015 paper goes back to 450 nm as the calibration wavelength, and is quite emphatic about it:
The extract was diluted in a balanced salt solution (BSS) and standardised by quantifying the optical density of the preparation using a spectrophotometer at 450 nm wavelength (Biotek, Wolf Laboratory). A master preparation which gave 0.25 OD at 450 nm was stored as the master stock and so named as DME25 for the subsequent experiments.
It’s a complete mess.
LikeLike
Oncol Lett. 2015 Sep; 10(3): 1240–1250.
Published online 2015 Jul 6. doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.3459
JW Jiang (Cardiff University-Peking University Cancer Institute, Henry Wellcome Building, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK) senior and corresponding author.
Table II. Sources of the Yangzheng Xiaoji capsule.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4533180/table/tII-ol-0-0-3459/
14 plant components and 2 animal components, which include dried bodies of Eupolyphaga sinensis, a wingless, flightless cockroach, and Chicken crop lining. The growth conditions of both plants and animals will influence their potency. Biological assays would be needed, not simply measuring optical density at 405 nm.
LikeLike
There is mockademic conferencing involved, because of course there is.
This appears to be the “19th World Congress on Advances in Oncology”, organised by Spandidos Publications… who are conference / tourism agents as well as publishers.
There is also the Cardiff China Medical Research Collaborative, which is basically Professor Wen Jiang, and exists primarily to organise the yearly China-UK Cancer Conference.
LikeLike
Figure 3A Br J Cancer. 2014 Jan 21;110(2):421-9 and Figure 2B Oncol Rep. 2014 Jan;31(1):175-82 much more similar than you would expect.
HRT18 and AGS are different cell lines, different samples.
See: https://imgur.com/moC9RGy
Also, figure 4A Br J Cancer. 2014 Jan 21;110(2):421-9.
See: https://imgur.com/tM5aZCe
References:-
1. Oncol Rep. 2014 Jan;31(1):175-82. doi: 10.3892/or.2013.2866. Epub 2013 Nov 20.
Death associated protein 1 is correlated with the clinical outcome of patients with colorectal cancer and has a role in the regulation of cell death.
Jia Y1, Ye L, Ji K, Toms AM, Davies ML, Ruge F, Ji J, Hargest R, Jiang WG.
Author information
Cardiff University-Peking University School of Oncology Joint Institute, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK.
Br J Cancer. 2014 Jan 21;110(2):421-9. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.712. Epub 2013 Dec 3.
Death-associated protein-3, DAP-3, correlates with preoperative chemotherapy effectiveness and prognosis of gastric cancer patients following perioperative chemotherapy and radical gastrectomy.
Jia Y1, Ye L2, Ji K2, Zhang L3, Hargest R2, Ji J3, Jiang WG2.
Author information
1
1] Cardiff University-Peking University School of Oncology Joint Institute, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK [2] Metastasis and Angiogenesis Research Group, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK [3] Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 52, Haidian District, Beijing 100142, China.
2
1] Cardiff University-Peking University School of Oncology Joint Institute, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK [2] Metastasis and Angiogenesis Research Group, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK.
3
1] Cardiff University-Peking University School of Oncology Joint Institute, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK [2] Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 52, Haidian District, Beijing 100142, China.
LikeLike
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1016710-ccmrc-alumnus-wins-prestigious-british-council-alumni-award
From this Cardiff university website “Cardiff University alumnus Professor Jiafu Ji (PhD 2015) has received the British Council’s Professional Achievement Award at the 2017 Study UK Awards in Beijing.”
we learn that Professor Jiafu Ji received his PhD in 2015. I wonder if his thesis contained any data presented in Br J Cancer. 2014 Jan 21;110(2):421-9 or Oncol Rep. 2014 Jan;31(1):175-82
LikeLike
In the course of his rapid ascent, Prof Jianfu Ji co-signed a lot of Jiang’s advertorials for Yiling products, and he’s published his own exercises in the promotion of TCM scams.
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=12014006665
In Ji’s defense, medical science in China has become so corrupted that in order to rise to his current position of eminence, he’d have to genuflect in the direction of TCM fraudsters, whether or not he takes it seriously himself.
LikeLike
“I also looked at a person who published over 500 papers in Cardiff, found WG Jiang”.
Professor Jiang’s CV makes for entertaining reading. https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/people/view/126431-jiang-wen
Many of his impressive output of papers involve the World Journal of Oncology. So who is Editor-in-Chief of the World Journal of Oncology? That turns out to be one Wen G. Jiang. http://www.wjon.org/index.php/wjon
Is the World Journal of Oncology a reputable outlet? Well, the publisher is Elmer Press, which is to say just another bunch of lowlife predatory-publishing scammers (claiming to be Canadian, more likely Chinese). But other than that, they’re fine!
LikeLike
Does Elmer Press have anything to do with Elmer Fudd?
LikeLike
They could have been inspired by the glue of the same name.
LikeLike
Gastric Cancer. 2018 Jan;21(1):41-54. doi: 10.1007/s10120-017-0721-x.
In the images of figure 3b the background looks highly monotonous. This might be due to low resolution.
There should be real background, not just monotonous zigzags. It is up to the authors to demonstrate true background.
See: https://imgur.com/hCdoEyC
FYI
Gastric Cancer. 2018 Jan;21(1):41-54. doi: 10.1007/s10120-017-0721-x. Epub 2017 May 10.
MicroRNA-1 acts as a tumor suppressor microRNA by inhibiting angiogenesis-related growth factors in human gastric cancer.
Xie M1, Dart DA2, Guo T1, Xing XF1, Cheng XJ1, Du H1, Jiang WG3, Wen XZ4, Ji JF5.
Author information
1
Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Division of Gastrointestinal Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.
2
Cardiff China Medical Research Collaborative, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK.
3
Cardiff China Medical Research Collaborative, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK. jiangw@cardiff.ac.uk.
4
Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Division of Gastrointestinal Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China. wenxz@bjmu.edu.cn.
5
Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Division of Gastrointestinal Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China. jijiafu@hsc.pku.edu.cn.
LikeLike
The zigzigs and other geometrical patterns are artefacts of a dithering algorithm, to my eyes. At some point the images were saved as GIFs that only allowed a limited number of levels of grey. Since the background was a featureless level of grey, falling somewhere between the levels available within the file format, it was replaced by an alternating tesselation of white and grey pixels. That is my guess, anyway.
LikeLike
Is there a similar problem with low resolution here?
Anticancer Res. 2017 Aug;37(8):4405-4414.
Figure 5B. https://imgur.com/d2jPoLA
I can see one dark spot, and a couple of grey spots. It is not obvious what is being demonstrated.
Anticancer Res. 2017 Aug;37(8):4405-4414.
NHERF1 Suppresses Lung Cancer Cell Migration by Regulation of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition.
Yang F1,2, Gu Y1,2, Zhao Z1,2, Huang J1,2, Jiang WG1,2,3, Cheng S4,2.
Author information
1
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Capital Medical University, Beijing, P.R. China.
2
Beijing Key Laboratory of Cancer & Metastasis Research, Capital Medical University, Beijing, P.R. China.
3
Cardiff China Medical Research Collaborative, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, U.K.
4
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Capital Medical University, Beijing, P.R. China chengs@ccmu.edu.cn.
LikeLike
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/people/view/126431-jiang-wen
Publications.
There are 57 papers in 2017, that’s more than one a week. I can’t write that fast, let alone put together figures, review the literature, check references, etc. . Very quickly you become tired of looking at them. Does evasiveness, i.e. making it difficult for others to scrutinize your output, count as misconduct?
LikeLike
I forgot, and do experiments.
LikeLike
It is a secret known to everybody. It is physically impossible to provide real contribution for 100 papers per year but examples are all around. It might be possible to publish 20-25 papers per year in some branches of science with more or less reasonable contribution. Everything above 50 deserves investigation and 100 per year is evidence of misconduct. To sign papers without any contribution is misconduct by definition. However, this misconduct is awarded by grants and considered to be normal.
LikeLike
If I may return to this ‘Yangzheng Xiaoji’ side of the story… Prof. Jiang has co-authored a series of conference presentations and papers on the 14-herb mixture, agreeing on its medical potential, though varying in the details of its in-vitro effects. Maybe it inhibits angiogenesis! Perhaps it’s the adhesion kinase signalling? It works as a HGF antagonist! It inhibits the phosphorylation of HSP27!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22971748
https://www.spandidos-publications.com/or/30/3/1405
http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/36/3/1181.abstract
https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-015-0639-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5063420/
The references of these papers also agree in referring the readers to the positive results clinical trials, in China, reported in journals that may not be generally accessible.
The Methods specify the source of the mixture:
Which is interesting, because one of the partners in Prof. Jiang’s “Cardiff China Medical Research Collaborative” is the Yiling Medical Research Institute… one might assume this to be an august academic body, but no, it’s a branch of the Yiling Pharmaceutical Company. Indeed, the company is quite an active partner in this collaboration, with Yiling Medical Research Institute providing co-authors to these YZXJ papers, as well as providing the putative drug. Conflicts of interest could be construed.
Yiling Pharmaceutical Company exists to mainstream Traditional Chinese Quackery and profit from the gullibility of the wider world:
It appears quackery is a central goal of the “Cardiff China Medical Research Collaborative”, not just a peripheral aspect. Cardiff University administrators (and other members of the group) need to explain why they are in bed with these scammers.
LikeLike
It was all quite clever. A middle ranking U.K.university (Cardiff), which thought it had a special relationship with the world’s rising power (China), a product (Chinese traditional medicine, TCM) which appeals to the western chattering classes (yet which modern Chinese doctors rarely use), para-governmental organisations such as the British Council, which thought it was building bridges and promoting trade. Even small details fall into place. In the BBC video prof Wen Jiang says 16 herbs, rather than 14 herbs, the bodies of cockroaches and chicken gizzard, as that would make the chattering classes vomit.
“Chasing the dragon”. The logo is almost funny. The Welsh dragon and the Chinese dragon, as if that made the two countries had something in common because of icons.
LikeLike
See also “ShenLingLan Influences the Attachment and Migration of Ovarian Cancer Cells Potentially through the GSK3 Pathway” (Owen et al., 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28930226
— Prof. Jiang and his team join forces with Wu Yiling’s team to give Cardiff University’s imprimatur to another of Yiling Pharmaceutical’s magic-based herbal products.
LikeLike
Welsh cancer-research resources are going to this scam.
Apparently “Owning or working for the drug company supplying the substance being advertised” could not be construed as a conflict of interest.
LikeLike
a product (Chinese traditional medicine, TCM) which appeals to the western chattering classes (yet which modern Chinese doctors rarely use),
I am given to understand that the current Chinese leadership have decided to raise the prestige of TCM, at home as well as abroad, recognising it and regulating it and promoting it, having seized upon TCM as an emblem of cultural / nationalist supremacy. Partly because they do not like things going on which are outside the control of the Party; and partly because there is a huge amount of money in the TCM export market: Jiang’s occasional co-author Wu Yiling was so successful with his grifting that Forbes listed him as 1107-equal on their World’s Richest List in 2013.
LikeLike
The references of these papers also agree in referring the readers to the positive results [of] clinical trials, in China, reported in journals that may not be generally accessible.
I finally got around to looking more closely at this paper in the “Chinese Journal of Difficult & Complicated Cases”, reporting positive results from a clinical trial for the Yiling Pharma placebo, cited in all the Yiling Pharma papers — “A Randomized,Double-blind and Multicentre Study of Interventional Chemotherapy Combined with Yangzhengxiaoji Capsule in Treating Primary Hepatic Carcinoma”.
Sure enough, it comes from Yiling Pharma, with Wu Yiling as senior author.
LikeLike
It may not be immediately apparent that “Inhibitory effects of Yangzheng Xiaoji on angiogenesis and the role of the focal adhesion kinase pathway” (Jiang et al, November 2012) is a translation / recycled version of Yiling Pharma’s patent for their “DME-25” product, from May 2012. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c3/a3/a0/44384107a79911/CN103417907A.pdf
A translation here (thanks, Google): https://patents.google.com/patent/CN103417907A/en
The traditional Chinese medicine composition is capable of benefiting qi and nourishing yin, invigorating spleen and tonifying kidney, and removing stasis and relaxing vein; and the applications of the traditional Chinese medicine composition are right focused on pathomechanism. It is confirmed by experiments that the traditional Chinese medicine composition is capable of inhibiting angiogenesis effectively, and can be used for treating malignant tumor, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetic retinopathy and unstable arterial plaque in clinic
Compare, for instance, Page 20 of the patent: https://i.imgur.com/0MI8Dsn.png
with Figure 1 of the paper: https://i.imgur.com/34JqCHT.png
LikeLike
According to the paper’s Acknowledgements,
If “Cancer Research Wales” were indeed sponsoring a Chinese pharma company’s patent application, were aware of this?
LikeLike
In reply to Smut Clyde
February 11, 2018 at 01:15
“ShenLingLan extract (SLDM). ShenLingLan was obtained from Yiling Pharmaceuticals (Shijiazhuang, HeBei, China). It is made of 14 individual herbs, including Astragalus, Ligustrum lucidum, Ginseng, Ganoderma lucidum, Curcuma, Gynostemma, Atractylodes (fried), Poria, Cordyceps sinensis, Xu changqing, Eupolyphaga, Panax, diffusa, Scutellaria barbata, Divine Comedy (fried).”
“Eupolyphaga” is no herb, but a cockroach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eupolyphaga_sinensis
Eupolyphaga sinensis, or tǔ biē chóng, 土鳖虫, is a species of wingless, flightless cockroach in the genus Eupolyphaga, native to Western China and Mongolia. The dried body is used in traditional Chinese medicine.[2]
References[edit]
Jump up
^ George Beccaloni. “species Eupolyphaga sinensis (Walker, 1868)”. Blattodea Species File (Version 1.0/4.1). Retrieved November 28, 2012.
Jump up
^ Gang-feng Ge; Chen-huan Yu; Bing Yu; Zhen-hua Shen; Dong-liang Zhang; Qiao-feng Wu (2012). “Antitumor effects and chemical compositions of Eupolyphaga sinensis Walker ethanol extract”. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 141 (1): 178–182. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2012.02.016. PMID 22366674.
LikeLike
Yes, well, Cordyceps sinensis is a fungus. And “Divine Comedy (fried)” loses something in the translation.
LikeLike
Isn’t cordyceps the family of mushrooms that takes over some insect’s brain, making them crawl to an advantageous location, then kills them and uses their body as a source of energy, releasing further spores to infect other insects? I’m pretty sure I saw a BBC nature documentary on it.
There is a joke in there somewhere about modern science scams, research groups churning out useless papers in dubious journals and trainees getting their own jobs based on these publications lists, and naive funding bodies and Gregor Samsa-esque bureaucrats desperate for metrics. Something, something…. Well, I’m sure anyone can fill out the rest to make their own fried divine comedy.
LikeLike
“Ophiocordyceps sinensis (formerly known as Cordyceps sinensis) is an entomopathogenic fungus (a fungus that grows on insects) found in mountainous regions of Nepal and Tibet. It parasitizes larvae of ghost moths and produces a fruiting body which used to be valued as a herbal remedy. However, it usually contains high amount of arsenic and other heavy metals so that it is potentially toxic”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_sinensis
LikeLike
The existence of C. sinensis is threatened by massive over-harvesting on the Tibetan plateau, entire Himalayan habitats stripped bare to feed the TCM demand:
Click to access Stone%202008%20sinensis%20in%20Science.pdf
The caterpillar-shaped fungi look kind of phallic, which makes them (by the logic of sympathetic magic) a herbal cure for impotence.
Fortunately the TCM quackery-industry has not discovered the related New Zealand species, Ophiocordyceps robertsii.
http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.com/2011/03/stalk-forrest-group.html
Turns out that the “Poria” ingredient is also a fungus, but the definition of “herbal” is elastic.
LikeLike
I hope someone at Cardiff notices that in addition to the fraudulence, the magic herbs and spices papers are junk science. For example in Owen et al. mentioned above, the error bars are huge and they have DMSO killing the cells with or without their concoction, which is not described in sufficient detail to replicate the experiments. Big surprise that dying cells don’t adhere! I could churn out 3 of these papers before lunch every day if I had such complaisant journals to park them in.
LikeLike
The idea of a “plain DMSO control” is missing from all these studies.
LikeLike
Pingback: Boletim de Notícias: Turquia condena cientista da Nasa a 7,5 anos de prisão | Direto da Ciência
Very funny drawing about the brothers in arms
LikeLike
Has anybody told vegetarians, and also vegans, that ShenLingLan extract (SLDM) contains animal product?
Has anybody told people with cockroach allergy that ShenLingLan extract (SLDM) contains cockroach?
Also, the description as made of “14 individual herbs” is incorrect. The latter sounds like a matter for trading standards officials.
LikeLike
OK, the list of 14 herbs in SLDM contains 15 entries, but it specifies ‘panax’ as well as ‘ginseng’; they liked ginseng so much, they listed it twice. I wondered if the engarblement of the list (“Panax, diffusa, …”) is a typo for some plant “Panax diffusa”. But there is no such thing.
Despite these obvious errors, the list is copied verbatim in a few other exercises from the Cardiff / Yiling collaboration in pimping the company products. A conference poster: http://sabcs17.posterview.com/nosl/p/P3-06-10
A journal from a “Noble Research” predatory publisher: http://nobleresearch.org/Doi/10.14312/2052-4994.2017-5
Ultimately the list comes from the original Yiling patent, and it collected translation errors along the way.
https://www.google.com/patents/CN103417907A?cl=en
I can only guess that no-one on the English-speaking side of the collaboration read what they were signing, or were in a position to say “This list is garbled, we should fix it.”
LikeLike
Sorry, wrong patent, should be this one: http://www.google.com.pg/patents/CN1403147A?cl=en
LikeLike
Actually, the Divine Comedy (shen qu) can have 6 or 7 ingredients itself depending on how it is made, so the number of herb is indeterminate. This is not a consistent formulation and most of its ingredients are traditional, so I don’t see how they can patent it.
LikeLike
https://www.cancerresearchwales.co.uk/congratulations-to-our-great-scientists/
“Congratulations to our ‘Great’ Scientists
14 of our very own cancer research scientists, professors and surgeons have scaled the Great Wall of China and raised £2,200 for our charity.”
That’s just over £157 each! Did they pay their own airfares to get there, food and accommodation?
Prof Wen Jiang, Dr Jun Cai, Dr Yuxin Cui, Dr Alwyn Dart, Juliet Davies, Dr Rachel Hargest, Dr Edison Ke Ji, Dr Nicola Jordan, Dr Zubair Khanzada, Dr Tracey Martin, Dr Andrew Sanders, Hoi Ping Jim, Dr Steve Hiscox, and Prof Mason Malcolm, (all aged between 26 and 58) made up the intrepid team and are all part of the Cardiff University – Peking University Cancer Institute (CUPUCI). CUPUCI is led by Prof Wen Jiang, one of the world’s leading cancer researchers.
“CUPUCI is led by Prof Wen Jiang, one of the world’s leading cancer researchers.”
On what basis did the charity form that opinion?
“Professor Wen Jiang said: “We are extremely grateful for all the generous support Cancer Research Wales has given us over the years and this is just a small gesture to say thank you. We are delighted with the amount we have raised for such a remarkable charity and all the fantastic work that they do throughout Wales.””
He is correct that it is a small gesture.
LikeLike
Pingback: Fried Divine Comedy, featuring anti-cancer cockroach and phallic fungus – For Better Science