Mice homozygous for a modified beta-amyloid precursor protein (beta APP) gene show impaired behavior and high incidence of agenesis of the corpus callosum
Authors: C Weissman
Z W Li
T Rülicke
H P Lipp
S Brandner
D P Wolfer
A Aguzzi
N Cristina
U Müller
Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (1996)
Discipline: Multidisciplinary
Keywords: amyloid precursor protein; gene disruption; homologous recombination; RNA expression; protein expression
Affiliations: Institut für Molekularbiologie I, Universität Zürich, Switzerland.

Abstract:  The amyloid precursor protein (beta APP) gene of the mouse was disrupted by homologous recombination; however, contrary to expectation, brain and other tissues still contained beta APP-specific RNA, albeit at a level 5-10 fold lower than wild-type and lacking the disrupted exon, which had been spliced out. The brain contained shortened beta APP-specific protein at a low level. Mutant mice were severely impaired in spatial learning and exploratory behavior and showed increased incidence of agenesis of the corpus callosum. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 The abstract, the full discussion, figure legends, and figures of this paper are almost exactly the same from the previous published publication (Muller et al., 1994; DOI:https: doi.org 10.1016 0092-8674(94)90066-3). Although the previous paper was cited, it is not clear how this publication can qualify as a novel intellectual contribution. Abstract: ![file] Discussion: ![file] , 
 The abstract, the full discussion, figure legends, and figures of this paper are almost exactly the same from the previous published publication (Muller et al., 1994; DOI:https: doi.org 10.1016 0092-8674(94)90066-3). Although the previous paper was cited, it is not clear how this publication can qualify as a novel intellectual contribution. Figure 1 ![file] , 
 DOI link is not working. Previous paper can be found at: https: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 8001115 , 
 25 years ago, the New York Academy of Sciences invited Charles Weissmann to give a speech. They then asked him to publish a written essay of said speech. Because he spoke of his APP ko mice (a rigorous, extremely important piece of science), he provided (and appropriately cited) his previous paper. This is not plagiarism. There is nothing wrong with what he did. This kind of  gotcha comments says a lot about the malicious intents of PubPeer commenters, and nothing about Charles Weissmann or his coauthors. Charles is 86yr old and in poor health. He does not deserve this. If you have a modicum of decency, delete this libelous insult against a great scientist who cloned interferon, invented site-directed mutagenesis and cloned the prion gene. Charles is a generous and supportive mentor whose alumni include some of the best molecular scientists worldwide (Dick Flavell, Tada Taniguchi, Shige Nagata, Ulrike Mu00fcller and many others). , 
 I think the commentator  Exechia Separata may not be malicious, but simply ignorant (or oblivious) of the fact that it is common practice in science and medicine to give invited lectures one conferences. Such lectures are then published in conference proceedings, and naturally, they are congruent with previous or upcoming publication. As the commentator  Trichadenotecnum Cornutum correctly states, the result is a similar or identical text to previous publications. I think  Exechia Separata needs a bit of education what original publications, conference proceedings, and review articles are, and where similarities are not only inevitable, but intended. , 
 I should also add to my previous comment that I worked with Charles Weissmann between 1993 and approximately 2006, and I can confirm that he is one of the most honest and scrupulous scientists that I have worked with. Even towards the end of his scientific career, (at a stage when most principal investigators barely look at the raw data of their postdocs) he was instead meticulously examining PCR results or Western blot images of all experiments that his postdocs performed. Each cloning strategy was personally supervised. He scrutinised everyone s data to ensure that all his publications where of the highest possible standard! I suggest that  Exechia Separata does a bit more homework before posting their comments. , 
 High degree of similarity to a Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences publication has led to retraction. https: pubpeer.com publications FB8E6001650CD746F8F8C4D64CEF1F , 
 I never considered this as an original paper (which would be a matter of concern) and so I had no objection for publication. Hans-Peter Lipp ,