Retraction of: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34393-9, published online 29 October 2018
The Editors have retracted this Article.
The main method utilised in this study is an ELISA assay. An investigation by the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, has concluded that the patient selection and description in this Article, and in an unpublished report validating the methods used, do not justify the results presented. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions presented in this Article.
Kunal Garg, Leena Meriläinen, Heidi Pirttinen, Marco Quevedo-Diaz, Stephen Croucher and Leona Gilbert disagree with this retraction. Ole Franz did not respond to correspondence from the Editors about this retraction.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Garg, K., Meriläinen, L., Franz, O. et al. Retraction Note: Evaluating polymicrobial immune responses in patients suffering from tick-borne diseases. Sci Rep 12, 3211 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07207-2
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07207-2
Leona Gilbert
I do not agree with this retraction as the Scientific Reports peer review process was upheld, the Scientific Reports editors upon additional clarification also were satisfied, and three additional unsolicited reviewers were satisfied with the patient categorization and description in the article. University of Jyväskylä, Finland demanded a tick bite in the description of the patients, even though this is not required by CDC definition and by scientific standard as nearly 50% of patients do not recall a tick bite. Univeristy of Jyväskyla, Finland also allowed conjecture to out weigh scientific evidence in their investigation. In addition, Scientific Reports do not have authority or should not even consider the unpublished data, as it is just unpublied data, in their decision. Additionally, Scientific Reports Paper did not even follow their policy of retraction as it clearly states, “The publishing team and Editorial Board Member will seek advice from referees if they judge that the information is likely to draw into question the main conclusions of the published paper”. Scientific Reports Editorial Board did not seek advice from referees, or if they did, they did not share it with the authors. This move is supporting the academic bullying seen in such cases where scientific merit is disregarded and conjecture is ruled with higher integrity.
Kunal Garg
I firmly disagree with retraction because the paper was peer-reviewed and published by Scientific Reports for its merits, independent of any unpublished report. University of Jyvaskyla's concerns regarding patient selection or validation methodology is anecdotal because their investigation ignored well-established practices. For example, the 2017 Lyme disease case definition by the Centre's for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not require a history of the tick bite to confirm exposure. The absence of information concerning a tick bite does not eliminate the possibility of a patient suffering from Lyme or tick-borne disease. As a result, several other researchers have also published peer-reviewed articles without reporting tick exposure and recruiting patients based on their signs, symptoms, and laboratory test results. Moreover, the Scientific Reports editorial board found our methodology convincing for similar concerns in 2020. It is unclear what more we could have done to persuade the Scientific Reports editors regarding the credibility of our research methods.
Ram B. Dessau
I agree with retraction.
The main scientific problems of this article in Scientific Reports is:
-The overall concept of naively interpreting antibody detection as indicating clinical infection, is poor understanding of basic undergraduate level immunology. Specific antibodies may persist and signify healthy natural immunity, without any relation to a current clinical problem
-Inadequate validation of the presented multiplex diagnostic assays.
-Implausible low rate of seropositivity in the healthy control group for commonly endemic infections.
-Other debatable issues for example the topic of “persisters”
-Some of the cited literature suffers similar reservations
The issue of misleading testing for 'lyme borreliosis' has been discussed elsehwere, for example by the CDC and ESGBOR.
Kunal Garg Replied to Ram B. Dessau
I disagree with the retraction and your comments following the reasons I have already provided in comments section of the original article. But here is a summary,
1. We are not commenting on current clinical problem because our study design is retrospective in nature.
2. In figures 5, S4, S5, and S6 we have demonstrated diagnostic performance for IgM, IgG, and combined IgM/IgG.
3. The percentage of healthy individuals responding to common communicable microbes is not implausibly low but equal to or higher than the reported prevalence. Please refer to the comment section of the original article.
4. Borrelia persistent forms have been referred to as cell wall-deficient, cysts, L-forms, spheroplasts, protoplasts, propagules, round bodies or atypical structures since 1996. Please refer to the comment section of the original article for more information.