Retraction to: Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5572, published online 05 August 2014

The Editors have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding some of the data presented in the figures, specifically:

  • Fig. 4A Input Anti-GFP lanes 1, 2 and 3 appear highly similar to Fig. 4B Input Anti-GFP lanes 1, 3 and 4, respectively;

  • Fig. 4C Total protein CTD110.6 V0 PUGNAc and V28 PUGNAc lanes appear highly similar to Cytosolic TaGRP2 V28 Mock and PUCNAc (rotated), respectively;

  • Fig. 4D-a and e appear to share similar features;

  • Fig. 4D-d appears to show a duplicated protoplast;

  • Fig. 5E IP: TaGRP2 RIP-2 and RIP-4 appear highly similar;

  • The blots in Figs. S10 and S11 appear to contain repetitive features and duplicated patterns in the gel backgrounds, and don’t fully match the data presented in the figures.

The authors have stated that Fig. 4D-a and d were misplaced, and the protoplast similarity was due to the same samples of living cells being imaged at 2-hour intervals; however, they were unable to explain the duplicated protoplast in panel d. They have also confirmed that some blots were edited to improve presentation.

The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the presented data.

Doris Wagner agrees with this retraction. Jun Xiao, Shujuan Xu, Chunhua Li, Yunyuan Xu, Lijing Xing, Yuda Niu, Qing Huan and Kang Chong disagree with this retraction. Yimiao Tang, Changping Zhao and Caixia Gao have not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction.