Analysis of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism in HPV-positive and HPV-negative penile carcinoma
Authors: Bernardina Stefanon
Giuseppe De Palo
Gerardo Botti
Luigi Buonaguro
Simona Losito
Valentina Guida
Maria Luisa Duraturo
Maria Lina Tornesello
Franco M Buonaguro
Silvana Pilotti
Journal: Cancer Letters (2008)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: p53 polymorphism; codon 72; human papillomavirus (HPV); penile squamous cell carcinoma; allele distribution
Affiliations: Viral Oncology and AIDS Reference Centre, National Cancer Institute, Fondazione Pascale, Cappella Cangiani, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Abstract:  The association of the p53 polymorphism at codon 72 and susceptibility to develop human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cancer has been investigated in several studies with controversial results. In this study, 78 penile squamous cell carcinoma biopsies (n=17 from Uganda, n=61 from Italy) and blood samples from 150 healthy controls (n=57 from Uganda, n=93 from Italy) have been analyzed for the arginine and proline allele distribution. Among Ugandan cases the heterozygous, proline homozygous and arginine homozygous genotype frequency was 41.2%, 52.9% and 5.9%, respectively, and among controls was 40.3%, 54.4%, and 5.3%, respectively (P=0.9917). Conversely, among Italian cases genotype distribution was 42.6%, 4.9%, and 52.5%, and among controls was 34.4%, 7.5%, and 58.1%, respectively (P=0.5343). No significant differences in arginine and proline allele distribution were observed when the cases were stratified by HPV status. Therefore, no evidence of association between homozygosity for p53 arginine and HPV-related or HPV-unrelated penile squamous cell carcinoma was observed neither among Ugandan nor among Italian populations. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 ![file] , 
 ![file] , 
 Via https: www.ilfattoquotidiano.it in-edicola articoli 2019 11 28 ricerche-mediche-aggiustate-pero-la-scienza-tace 5583974 (and Google translate) Fixed medical research, but science is silent by Gianni Barbacetto | NOVEMBER 28, 2019 u201cFor justice everything is fine. But is this okay for the scientific community ? Is it possible to falsify the images of the experiments, or avoid doing the control experiment, without anyone having anything to say? These are the questions that remain, at the end of a long judicial investigation by the Milan Public Prosecutor s Office on some articles of the most important Italian scientists engaged in cancer research. Professor Alberto Mantovani of Humanitas, Pier Giuseppe Pelicci of Ieo, Pier Paolo Di Fiore of Ifom, Marco Pierotti, with Maria Angela Greco, Elena Tamburini and Silvana Pilotti of the Cancer Institute, were investigated by prosecutors Francesco Cajani and Paolo Filippini for having manipulated the images of some of their studies published in international scientific journals. They are research luminaries who maneuver millions of euros from public funds, private donations, 5 per thousand collections . They received, only in the period analyzed by the Public Prosecutor (2005-2012), very high figures: 9.37 million Di Fiore; 3.06 Mantovani; 1.48 Pelicci; 3.60 Pierotti, for a total of 17 million paid by the CNR , the Ministry of Health and the University. And they got caught  fixing their research records. Now the judge of the preliminary investigation Sofia Fioretta has closed the investigation started in 2014, dismissing the accusations and arguing - with bold arguments - that the professors  did not carry out any falsification activities  . The two prosecutors had already requested the filing, arguing that the manipulations are established, but that the crime of  scientific fraud does not exist in Italy (as there is instead that of insurance fraud and sports fraud), therefore it is not possible pursue the behaviors of the seven excellent oncologists. The investigating judge was more creative : he recognized  a harmless and innocent fake , realized  because there was no time or money to perform the replication, or because competitors were coming first (what stupid scientists who do everything right instead ). Therefore,  insignificant errors were made . Replicas of the experiments were not carried out, but this  did not affect the content of the research and  did not undermine the scientific validity of the published thesis . In short: the luminaries were wrong, but in modest quantity . Yet the examinations of the experts of the Public Prosecutor s Office have ascertained the manipulations: three in the works of Pelicci-Ieo, four in those of the group of Pierotti-Istituto dei tumori (i.e. two by Pilotti and one by Greco and Tamburini), one in the works by Di Fiore-Ifom and one by Mantovani-Humanitas. But nothing wrong with that, that s okay, the investigating judge Fioretta reassures us. Closed the judicial game, at this point we ask some questions to the scientific community: 1. Are there, in scientific practice,  harmless and innocent false manipulations , but  of little significance ? 2. Is it normal that seven luminaries of oncology research publish images in international scientific journals that are manipulated in 21 out of 27 cases analyzed? 3. Is it compatible with the scientific method that, having performed the first experiment, one tarot the replica,  because there was no time or money to perform it,  or because competitors were arriving first ? 4. Since it is impossible, on the judicial level, to establish the direct connection between research carried out and funds obtained, is it still normal, on the scientific and ethical level, to obtain money, public and private, with the prestige gained (also) with fake research? 5. Is the scientific community sure that squaring up (corporately) and rejoicing in the  false innocents is the best way to defend science and the scientific method, now threatened by charlatans, scoundrels and no-vaxes?u201d ,