RETRACTION: Molecular Insights Into Development of Trichoderma Interfusants for Multistress Tolerance Enhancing Antagonism Against Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc

Abstract

RETRACTION: Hirpara, D. G., H. P. Gajera, A. K. Patel, Z. A. Katakpara, and B. A. Golakiya, “Molecular Insights Into Development of Trichoderma Interfusants for Multistress Tolerance Enhancing Antagonism Against Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.” Journal of Cellular Physiology 234, no. 5 (2019): 7368–7383. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.27496.

The above article, published online on 28 October 2018 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Robert Heath, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. A third party notified the journal of image duplications within Figure 2 of this article: Fu 9(a) had been re-used as Fu 21(a) and Fu 22 (12 DAI) had been re-used as Fu 23 (12 DAI). The third party also indicated that the Fu 21(a)/Fu 21(a) image had been re-used in another article by some of the same authors (Hirpara and Gajera [2018]; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2018.09.005) and that all images describe different experimental conditions. Lastly, the third party also found evidence of duplicated datapoints within Table 1. An investigation by the publisher confirmed the duplication of images within Figure 8 and also found evidence of duplication and resizing of cellular sections between the Fu 21 and Fu 28 images in Figure S1.

The authors responded to an inquiry by the publisher and provided what was labeled as original data. The authors confirmed that the FU 21 image in Figure 2 had been reused in another article but stated that the image was intended to provide background information on the purity of the fusant culture and that the duplication does not influence the results. The authors also confirmed the duplications of images in Figure 2 as well as the duplication in Figure S1, but they did not provide the original images for these experiments for verification by the publisher. A review of the original data found several duplicated datapoints that were not adequately explained and that some values reported in the original data did not match those in the published article.

The retraction has been agreed to because of discrepancies between the published data and the original data, as well as the duplication of images within this article and with another published article, which fundamentally compromises the editors’ confidence in the conclusions presented in the article. The authors disagree with the retraction.