Biology subjects

Byrne, J. A.

Publications and source records attributed to Byrne, J. A..

8 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2026

Verification of human nucleotide sequence reagents and cell line identities in original circRNA articles published in high impact factor journals

Numbers of research articles studying circRNAs have increased rapidly since 2017. Previous analyses of human circRNA articles in two high impact factor cancer research journals identified papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents and circRNAs whose identities could not be independently verified. In the present study, verification of human nucleotide sequence reagent and cell line identities in retracted circRNA articles published from 2017-2021 in high impact factor journals found wrongly identified nucleotide sequences and/or cell lines in all 13 retracted papers. Similar analyses of human circRNA papers published in high impact factor journals in 2022 found wrongly identified, non-verifiable and/or questionable reagents in 71% (84/118) papers, where 51% (60/118) papers described at least one wrongly identified reagent. When individual error types and features of concern were considered, 2022 circRNA papers described wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents (52/118, 44%), questionable circRNA probes that did not meet accepted targeting requirements (34/118, 29%), non-verifiable nucleotide sequences (25/118, 21%), wrongly identified cell lines (22/118, 19%), and/or non-verifiable cell line identifiers (6/118, 5%). In summary, wrongly identified, non-verifiable and/or questionable reagents were unexpectedly frequent in human circRNA papers in high impact journals, highlighting the need for critical engagement with the circRNA literature.

genomics↗

bioRxiv2026

Suspected distortion of citations in high-impact cancer journals

Research and scholarship are shaped by article citations, which underpin the communication of ideas, assignment of credit, journal impact factors, and author career progression. Given their key influence on author and journal metrics, citations can be intentionally manipulated to inflate the reputation of journals and researchers. Paper mills, unethical organisations that produce and sell manuscripts and publishing services, may also be manipulating citations, but the extent of this manipulation is unknown. Here, we show that molecular cancer articles sharing features with retracted papers from paper mills display citation patterns that suggest systematic inflation. These articles were published in journals in the top decile of journal rankings. Suspected paper mill articles received 50 to 100% more citations than other papers 1 to 3 years after publication, while paradoxically attracting fewer readers and online accesses. Suspected paper mill articles also cited - and were cited by - other suspected paper mill articles, which frequently appeared in journals previously reported as paper mill targets. Citations from suspected paper mill articles measurably inflated journal citation metrics. These findings suggest that paper mills inflate the citation metrics of supported publications and affected journals at scale. This widespread manipulation of citation metrics may amplify unreliable findings, slowing scientific progress and spurring unreasonable citation benchmarks for research articles, journals and authors. Our findings point to measurable signatures of citation manipulation that could support article- and journal-level screening.

cancer biology↗

bioRxiv2025

Engineering Spatial Control of Bacterial Organelles

Bacteria were once thought to lack organelles, but it is now clear they confine cellular reactions using an array of membrane- and protein-based compartments. A central question, however, is how bacterial organelles are organized in the cell, and whether their spatial control can be engineered. Here, we show that a two-protein system (McdAB) that positions carboxysomes - CO2-fixing organelles found in autotrophic bacteria - can be repurposed to provide programmable spatial control to diverse organelles in Escherichia coli. McdAB not only restores proper assembly and positioning of heterologously produced carboxysomes in E. coli, but can also be reprogrammed to spatially organize all other known types of bacterial organelles, including encapsulins, biomolecular condensates, and even membrane-bound organelles. Programmable spatial organization of bacterial organelles establishes a new design principle for synthetic biology, where the location of reactions is as tunable as their content. Our work paves the way for more efficient biocatalysis in engineered microbes.

microbiology↗

bioRxiv2025

Revealing the Paper Mill Iceberg: AI-Based Screening of Cancer Research Publications.

ObjectivesTo train and validate a machine learning model to distinguish paper mill publications from genuine cancer research articles, and to screen the cancer research literature to assess the prevalence of papers that have textual similarities to paper mill papers. DesignMethodological study applying a BERT-based text classification model to article titles and abstracts. SettingRetracted paper mill publications listed in the Retraction Watch database were used for model training. The cancer research corpus was screened by the model, using the PubMed database restricted to original cancer research articles published between 1999 and 2024. ParticipantsThe model was trained on 2,202 retracted paper mill papers and validated on independent data collected by image integrity experts. A total of 2.6 million cancer research papers were screened. Main outcome measuresClassification performance of the model. Prevalence of papers flagged as similar to retracted paper mill publications with 95% confidence intervals and their distribution over time, by country, publisher, cancer type, research area, and within high-impact journals (Decile 1). ResultsThe model achieved an accuracy of 0.91. When applied to the cancer research literature, it flagged 9.87% (95% CI 9.83 to 9.90) of papers and revealed a large increase in flagged papers from 1999 to 2024, both across the entire corpus and in the top 10% of journals by impact factor. Over 170,000 papers affiliated with Chinese institutions were flagged, accounting for 35% of Chinese cancer research articles. Most publishers had published substantial numbers of flagged papers. Flagged papers were overrepresented in fundamental research and in gastric, bone, and liver cancer. ConclusionsPaper mills are a large and growing problem in the cancer literature and are not restricted to low impact journals. Collective awareness and action will be crucial to address the problem of paper mill publications.

cancer biology↗

bioRxiv2025

Tuning the interaction of a ParA-type ATPase with its partner separates bacterial organelle positioning from partitioning

The maintenance of carboxysome distribution (Mcd) system comprises the proteins McdA and McdB, which spatially organize carboxysomes to promote efficient carbon fixation and ensure their equal inheritance during cell division. McdA, a member of the ParA/MinD family of ATPases, forms dynamic gradients on the nucleoid that position McdB-bound carboxysomes. McdB belongs to a widespread but poorly characterized class of ParA/MinD partner proteins, and the molecular basis of its interaction with McdA remains unclear. Here, we demonstrate that the N-terminal 20 residues of H. neapolitanus McdB are both necessary and sufficient for interaction with McdA. Within this region, we identify three lysine residues whose individual substitution modulates McdA binding and leads to distinct carboxysome organization phenotypes. Notably, lysine 7 (K7) is critical for McdA interaction: substitutions at this site result in the formation of a single carboxysome aggregate positioned at mid-nucleoid. This phenotype contrasts with that of an McdB deletion, in which carboxysome aggregates lose their nucleoid association and become sequestered at the cell poles. These findings suggest that weakened McdA-McdB interactions are sufficient to maintain carboxysome aggregates on the nucleoid but inadequate for partitioning individual carboxysomes across it. We propose that, within the ParA/MinD family of ATPases, cargo positioning and partitioning are mechanistically separable: weak interactions with the cognate partner can mediate positioning, whereas effective partitioning requires stronger interactions capable of overcoming cargo self-association forces.

microbiology↗

bioRxiv2024

Misspellings or miscellings- non-verifiable cell lines in cancer research publications

Reproducible laboratory research relies on correctly identified reagents. We have previously described human gene research papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagent(s), including papers studying miR-145. Manually verifying reagent identities in more recent miR-145 papers found 20/36 (56%) and 6/36 (17%) miR-145 papers with misidentified nucleotide sequence reagent(s) and human cell line(s), respectively. We also found 5 cell line identifiers in two miR-145 papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences and cell lines, and 18 identifiers published elsewhere that did not correspond to indexed cell lines. These cell line identifiers were described as non-verifiable, as their identities appeared uncertain. Studying 420 papers that mentioned 8 different non-verifiable cell line identifier(s) found 235 papers (56%) that appeared to refer to BGC-803, BSG-803, BSG-823, GSE-1, HGC-7901, HGC-803 and/or MGC-823 as independent cell lines. We could not find publications describing how these cell lines were established, and they were not indexed in claimed externally accessible cell line repositories. While some papers stated that STR profiles had been generated for BGC-803, GSE-1 and/or MGC-823 cells, no STR profiles were identified. In summary, non-verifiable human cell lines represent new challenges to research reproducibility and require further investigation to clarify their identities. Novelty and Impact StatementThrough verifying reagent identities in research publications, our team found 23 non-verifiable human cell line identifiers, most of which could represent misspellings of contaminated cancer cell lines. Of 8 identifiers studied in detail, 7 non-verifiable identifiers were unexpectedly referred to as independent cell lines across 235 publications. We therefore describe a process "miscelling", where published cell lines lack descriptions of how they were established, cannot be found in claimed external repositories and lack STR profiles.

cancer biology↗

bioRxiv2023

Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals

Human gene research studies that describe wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents have been mostly identified in journals of low to moderate impact factor, where unreliable findings could be considered to have limited influence on future research. This study examined whether papers describing wrongly identified nucleotide sequences are also published in high impact factor cancer research journals. We manually verified nucleotide sequence identities in original Molecular Cancer articles published in 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, including nucleotide sequence reagents that were claimed to target circRNAs. Using keywords identified in problematic 2018 and 2020 Molecular Cancer papers, we also verified nucleotide sequence identities in 2020 Oncogene papers that studied miRNA(s) and/or circRNA(s). Overall, 3.8% (253/6,647) and 4.3% (50/1,165) nucleotide sequences that were verified in Molecular Cancer and Oncogene papers, respectively, were found to be wrongly identified. These wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were distributed across 18% (92/500) original Molecular Cancer papers, including 38% Molecular Cancer papers from 2020, and 40% (21/52) selected Oncogene papers from 2020. Original papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were therefore unexpectedly frequent in two high impact factor cancer research journals, highlighting the risks of employing journal impact factors or citations as proxies for research quality.

cancer biology↗

bioRxiv2021

Human gene function publications that describe wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents are unacceptably frequent within the genetics literature

Nucleotide sequence reagents underpin a range of molecular genetics techniques that have been applied across hundreds of thousands of research publications. We have previously reported wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene function publications and described a semi-automated screening tool Seek & Blastn to fact-check the targeting or non-targeting status of nucleotide sequence reagents. We applied Seek & Blastn to screen 11,799 publications across 5 literature corpora, which included all original publications in Gene from 2007-2018 and all original open-access publications in Oncology Reports from 2014-2018. After manually checking the Seek & Blastn screening outputs for over 3,400 human research papers, we identified 712 papers across 78 journals that described at least one wrongly identified nucleotide sequence. Verifying the claimed identities of over 13,700 nucleotide sequences highlighted 1,535 wrongly identified sequences, most of which were claimed targeting reagents for the analysis of 365 human protein-coding genes and 120 non-coding RNAs, respectively. The 712 problematic papers have received over 17,000 citations, which include citations by human clinical trials. Given our estimate that approximately one quarter of problematic papers are likely to misinform or distract the future development of therapies against human disease, urgent measures are required to address the problem of unreliable gene function papers within the literature. Author summaryThis is the first study to have screened the gene function literature for nucleotide sequence errors at the scale that we describe. The unacceptably high rates of human gene function papers with incorrect nucleotide sequences that we have discovered represent a major challenge to the research fields that aim to translate genomics investments to patients, and that commonly rely upon reliable descriptions of gene function. Indeed, wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents represent a double concern, as both the incorrect reagents themselves and their associated results can mislead future research, both in terms of the research directions that are chosen and the experiments that are undertaken. We hope that our research will inspire researchers and journals to seek out other problematic human gene function papers, as we are unfortunately concerned that our results represent the tip of a much larger problem within the literature. We hope that our research will encourage more rigorous reporting and peer review of gene function results, and we propose a series of responses for the research and publishing communities.

genetics↗