Retraction: Receptor tyrosine kinase AXL is correlated with poor prognosis and induces temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma
Authors: Wan-Fu Xie
Mao-De Wang
Jia Wang
Xiao-Bin Bai
Xu-Dong Ma
Jie Zuo
Journal: CNS neuroscience & therapeutics (2020)
Discipline: PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
Keywords: Retraction; Receptor tyrosine kinase AXL; poor prognosis; temozolomide resistance; glioblastoma
Affiliations: Department of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China., Center of Brain Science, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China., The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.

Abstract:  Retraction: Receptor tyrosine kinase AXL is correlated with poor prognosis and induces temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma, CNS Neuroscience &amp; Therapeutics 2019, (https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.13227). The above article published online on 02 October 2019 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief Jun Chen, and John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to unreliable data and consequently its misleading results and conclusions. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Annexin V FACS dot blots in Figures 4 and 5 strikingly show repetitive patterns of dots (red circles) in supposedly different samples: ![file] ![file] ![file] , 
 Same pattern (different cells) also in other publication of the first author: ![file] ![file] , 
 Seems to be a universal DMSO and shRNA control, compare to CNS Neurosci Ther. 2019;00:1-10 Fig 4I and 5C and JCI 2017 Aug 1; 127(8): 3075-3089 Fig 6E (sse above): ![file] , 
 #1 Dear Reader: We would like to apologize for the careless mistakes and negligence on the presentation of the research data. Also, we really appreciate the reader pointed this out before it causes more misleading or other severe situation. These FACs assays were performed from 2018 to 2019 in a commercial institution which provide professional FACs analysis. The technician incorrectly used some batch processing program for FACs data analysis which seemed to aim all the files to the template files which has the same name. Herein, we looked into the raw data and reanalyzed by ourselves again and find that the figures were totally different and independent assays performed at different time point. I attached the comparison between the figures mentioned by the reader here. Also, we have already contacted with the editor of CNS Neuroscience Therapeutics and sent them raw data and gating files for all the FACs data in this manuscript. Hopefully we will get an opptunity to make a correction and added the raw data as supplementary fliles. Thank you again for your great efforts to improve our manuscripts. Please email me if you have any other concerns with our paper and we will try our best to reply as soon as possible. ![file] , 
 #2 Again, thank you for your kind reply. As mentioned previously, the FACs data was incorrectly analyzed by the institution with some incorrectly batch processing program. The explained to us that all the analysis seems to be overlapped with the templates we provided to them as a initial calibration files. Here we attached the images after we re-analyzed them. We have asked thenm for all the raw data and started the investigation to all our papers which contain FACs data performed and analyzed by this institution and we will contact with the journal one by one to explain this and make corrections or other remedies. Thank you so much for you notice this before it will cause more severe situation. Apologize to you all about our careless mistakes! ![file] , 
 #3 Thank you again for pointing out this. We attached the reanalyzed images for this paper. To avoid any concerns we included all the events in raw data to remade the reanalyzed figures. As you can see we labeled in the red square, these samples were totally different from any other figures. We have contacted with the editors of the related journals to explain about this and sent them all the raw data. Also, we thank the readers again for noticing this. Please feel free to contact mw through email and we are more than happy to answer any questions. ![file] , 
 #6 One question for the authors: are you intending to update your methods or acknowledgements sections of the paper to include the name of the persons (or company) that performed the assays presented in the paper? If yes, can you also share that information here? , 
 And how do you explain these Western blots? : ![file] , 
 You wrote these FACS analyzes were prepared by an institution from** 2018 to 2019**. The first blot I found with these patterns has been published in JCI** 2017** Aug 1; 127(8): 3075-3089, Fig 6E (see above). ,