Biological model of Alzheimer’s based upon fabricated research

[BWV]

Sad if true

findings that threaten one of the most cited Alzheimer’s studies of this century and numerous related experiments.

The first author of that influential study, published in Nature in 2006, was an ascending neuroscientist: Sylvain Lesné of the University of Minnesota (UMN), Twin Cities. His work underpins a key element of the dominant yet controversial amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s, which holds that Aβ clumps, known as plaques, in brain tissue are a primary cause of the devastating illness, which afflicts tens of millions globally. In what looked like a smoking gun for the theory and a lead to possible therapies, Lesné and his colleagues discovered an Aβ subtype and seemed to prove it caused dementia in rats. If Schrag’s doubts are correct, Lesné’s findings were an elaborate mirage.

…
A 6-month investigation by Science provided strong support for Schrag’s suspicions and raised questions about Lesné’s research. A leading independent image analyst and several top Alzheimer’s researchers—including George Perry of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and John Forsayeth of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)—reviewed most of Schrag’s findings at Science’s request. They concurred with his overall conclusions, which cast doubt on hundreds of images, including more than 70 in Lesné’s papers. Some look like “shockingly blatant” examples of image tampering, says Donna Wilcock, an Alzheimer’s expert at the University of Kentucky.

https://www.science.org/content/art...mages-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease

 

[Vanadium 50]

Science just loves dumping on Nature.

Here's what I don't get. If it's bogus, how was this reproduced? "Falsified but nevertheless correct" is an unusually spot to be in. (There is precedent, of course, include one the New York Times called "fake but accurate")

 

[BWV]

Science just loves dumping on Nature.

Here's what I don't get. If it's bogus, how was this reproduced? "Falsified but nevertheless correct" is an unusually spot to be in. (There is precedent, of course, include one the New York Times called "fake but accurate")

I don’t follow this closely, but wasn’t the validity of this model coming under scrutiny over the last few years?

 

[Jarvis323]

This model was central to the recent FDA controversy, where they approved a drug against the recommendations of the scientific advisory panel. The trials found that the drug reduced plaque but no evidence that it helps with cognition, and it can cause serious side effects like brain swelling and brain bleeding.

Although every drug of this type has so far failed to improve cognition, questions have persisted about whether amyloid-β is the right drug target, as well as whether researchers are testing the optimal therapeutic candidates, the correct doses and the appropriate patients.
...
The problem with most of the amyloid trials is that they didn’t disprove anything,” says Bart De Strooper, director of the UK Dementia Research Institute in London. “They just proved that a drug, in the way it was applied, didn’t work.
...
The data also showed that aducanumab has non-negligible side effects. Around 40% of treated participants in the two trials developed brain swelling.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01546-2

 

[TeethWhitener]

I have a few collaborators working in amyloids, and apparently the amyloid plaque hypothesis has been under fire for a little while now, as no one has been able to establish a clear causative link between the plaques and Alzheimer’s disease, and there has been quite a bit of difficulty in reproducing key results. The fact that the FDA rammed through a few drug approvals based on tenuous evidence for drugs meant to combat amyloid aggregation doesn’t really help the situation.

 

[gleem]

In reading the article cited in the OP a few who have worked with Lesné have raised concern. One co-author of a article with old images presented as new noted that this is " extremely egregious". Another co-author back in Caen France withdrew a paper before publication because Lensé's data could not be reproduced noting he was wary of Lensé.

There is a term "due diligence" which not only should be applied to activities that could produce physical or economic harm but harm in general as reputation and credibility. Remember R. Regan's admonition "Trust but verify"

The journal Nature has prefaced the latest publication by Lensé et al with

14 July 2022 Editor’s Note: The editors of Nature have been alerted to concerns regarding some of the figures in this paper. Nature is investigating these concerns, and a further editorial response will follow as soon as possible. In the meantime, readers are advised to use caution when using results reported therein.