STAP事件はおかしなことが多いと気づくことができるかどうか？が重要です。

コメントの編集

名前

タイトル

メールアドレス

URL

本文

お早うございます。
前コメは釣りが忙しくて帰ってきて見て、応答されていたので、よく調べずに直ぐにお返事しましたが、あなたの引用文はryobu-0123のブログで今確認出来ました。この人は一度連絡し合ったことがある人だったと記憶してますが、ずいぶん以前なのでもう忘れました。ジムさんなんかと関係があったかな。
ただし、この文章はどこかで見た記憶があって、それはハワイ大学という言葉に記憶があって、私は「僕のマウス」の説明は先生本人が記者会見で自分がロックフェラー大学に居た時に作って、後に129にGFPを移したと聞いていて、その説明を先に知っていたので、どうして相澤さんがハワイ大学と言ったのかが分からなかったという記憶がかすかに残っていたからです。ハワイ大学というのは先生が最初にクムリナを発見した時の大学ですね。
今、相沢論文のコメント欄は見れないので確認できませんが、コメント欄にあったものでしたかね。もう忘れましたし、私は自分のブログにはコメント欄の記載までは保存していません。

ryobu-0123のブログから転載して残しておきましょうかね。ここには査読コメントだと書かれていますが、私は最初このryobu-0123のブログで見たのではなかった気がします。
>>
（原文） 
 
Author Response 27 9 2016

Shinichi Aizawa, RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology, Japan

Dear Dr. Irene de Lazaro,

I thank you for your comments. The manuscript was revised incorporating your suggestions. My responses are as follows:

1.There was no FACS cell sorter in the laboratory in which Obokata performed the set of supervised experiments reported here. She had previously obtained “STAP” cells using splenocytes prepared using Lympholyte-M, so we sought to determine whether she was able to repeat this in the present study. If she had succeeded, our plan was next to generate STAP cells using CD45+ cells sorted by FACS.

2.The origin of the cag-gfp transgenic mouse line used in the retracted Nature papers is unclear, and was not reported in the papers. Dr. Wakayama informed us that he generated the cag-gfp mouse line himself while at the University of Hawaii, but we did not make a formal investigation into this. The mouse line was no longer maintained in the animal facility of CDB and was not available to us. Alternatively, the cag-gfp mouse line may have been actually an Acr/cag-gfp mouse line (Nakanishi et al., Genomics 80, 564-574 (2002)) as suggested in the report by Konno et al (Konno et al., Nature 525,E4-5 (2015). However, we only became aware of this possibility at the time of that report, which was after the start of Obokata’s replication attempt. In any case, the cag-gfp mouse line reportedly used in the original STAP reports is different from the cag-gfp mouse line (Okabe et al., 1997) we used in the present study. It is nonetheless difficult to conceive how the difference in cag-gfp transgene might affect the efficiency of “STAP cell” production and chimera generation.

3.In Fig. 4a of the retracted Nature article, the embryo being injected with “STAP” cells clearly has a zona pellucida. However, E4.5 embryos typically no longer have this structure. In the absence of zona pellucida, injection is practically impossible. We note that E0 is generally defined as 0:00 am of the day when the plug is identified, and suggest that E4.5 may be a typographic error for E3.5. Alternatively, Dr. Wakayama may have artificially delayed the development of the embryo; however, this was not reported in the retracted Nature paper.

4.We have now included a statistical analysis (t-test), which indicates that the efficiency of cell aggregate formation is significantly different between ATP treatment and HCl treatment in the C57BL/6 background. However, the difference is slight. We have revised the manuscript accordingly (Table 1 and page 5 in the text).

5.This study focused on the multipotency of cell aggregates generated by Obokata using a chimeric assay as this was the central feature of the reported “STAP” phenomena. Given the time constraints of this study, other data were necessarily limited, as noted in the Discussion. As it was not the focus of the present study, I cannot state definitively that the red fluorescence observed was autofluorescence, although I feel that this is highly likely. RT-PCR analysis for GFP expression showed significant expression in several aggregates, but not in others that showed green fluorescence; however, these data were preliminary at best and are not presented.

6.The effects on both cell aggregate formation and chimeric potency of the spleens’ genetic background were examined in the C57BL/6 and F1(C57BL6 x 129) background. It is well known that ES culture is strongly influenced by genetic background. Both of these backgrounds were used in the retracted Nature papers. I have now revised the manuscript (page 4 and page 6) to clarify this point.

7.The cell aggregates in Niwa’s report were prepared by Niwa, not by Obokata.

8.The two reports are now cited and briefly discussed (page 8–9). These works did not examine multipotency by chimeric assay, and the most important issue of the present report is that cell aggregates prepared by Obokata herself did not exhibit multipotency in chimeric assays.

Best regards,

Shin Aizawa

パスワード

非公開コメント

管理者にだけ表示を許可する