Home › Research › Laboratory science
Retraction: High-Affinity Naloxone Binding to Filamin A Prevents Mu Opioid Receptor-Gs Coupling / Retraction: Naloxone's Pentapeptide Binding Site on Filamin A Blocks Mu Opioid Receptor-Gs Coupling (among five Wang-authored papers retracted)
PLOS ONE Editors (retracting papers originally by Wang HY and colleagues). PLOS ONE, 2022-03-30
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Following an anonymous 2021 whistleblower petition to the FDA alleging manipulated research underlying the Alzheimer's drug simufilam, PLOS ONE conducted its own investigation and retracted five papers co-authored by Hoau-Yan Wang, some of them co-authored with a Cassava Sciences executive, after finding that background patterns in blot images appeared 'more similar than would be expected for data obtained in independent experiments.' Wang disputed the retractions and stood by the findings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Retraction: High-Affinity Naloxone Binding to Filamin A Prevents Mu Opioid Receptor-Gs Coupling / Retraction: Naloxone's Pentapeptide Binding Site on Filamin A Blocks Mu Opioid Receptor-Gs Coupling (among five Wang-authored papers retracted). (2022). PLOS ONE.
Vancouver
Retraction: High-Affinity Naloxone Binding to Filamin A Prevents Mu Opioid Receptor-Gs Coupling / Retraction: Naloxone's Pentapeptide Binding Site on Filamin A Blocks Mu Opioid Receptor-Gs Coupling (among five Wang-authored papers retracted). PLOS ONE. 2022.
BibTeX
@article{study2022-b8154517,
title = {{Retraction: High-Affinity Naloxone Binding to Filamin A Prevents Mu Opioid Receptor-Gs Coupling / Retraction: Naloxone's Pentapeptide Binding Site on Filamin A Blocks Mu Opioid Receptor-Gs Coupling (among five Wang-authored papers retracted)}},
journal = {PLOS ONE},
year = {2022}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. The record's author field reads “PLOS ONE Editors (retracting papers originally by Wang HY and colleagues)”, which cannot be turned into a citation name, so it is left out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Five PLOS ONE papers by Hoau-Yan Wang and colleagues retracted on March 30, 2022
- Retraction notices cited image background patterns inconsistent with independent experiments
- Two of the retracted papers were co-authored by Lindsay Burns, a Cassava Sciences senior executive
- Wang did not agree with the retractions and maintained the findings were valid
- Triggered a separate CUNY institutional investigation into Wang covering roughly 20 papers
Why it matters
Five papers by Hoau-Yan Wang, some co-authored by a Cassava Sciences executive, were retracted after blot image backgrounds looked more similar than expected for independent experiments. These retractions removed published laboratory support for the simufilam research program, and Wang disputed them while an institutional investigation covering roughly 20 papers proceeded.
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
Limitations
These particular retracted papers concerned opioid-receptor/Filamin A signaling rather than simufilam trial data directly; they are cited as part of the broader scientific foundation Cassava relied on, and the retractions reflect PLOS ONE's editorial findings rather than a court or federal-agency adjudication of fraud (that came later, in 2024, via SEC settlement and DOJ indictment).
How this study scored 12/100
Retracted — do not rely on it. It scored 12 on the same rubric, which is below the 16 cap we apply to non-peer-reviewed sources. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people, randomised / blinded and indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 8 of the 66 points we could judge it on, which is 12 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (PLOS ONE) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 0 / 10 | Retracted — do not rely on it. The title marks it as retracted, or it is the retraction notice itself. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 8 / 66 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 8 of the 66 points we could judge it on is 12 out of 100. |
| Total | 12 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Laboratory science
Also tagged “tdp-43”
1,150 studies in the library carry the topic tag “tdp-43”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,150 tagged studies.