TY - JOUR
T1 - Retraction note
T2 - Human HDAC6 senses valine abundancy to regulate DNA damage (Nature, (2025), 637, 8044, (215-223), 10.1038/s41586-024-08248-5)
AU - Jin, Jiali
AU - Meng, Tong
AU - Yu, Yuanyuan
AU - Wu, Shuheng
AU - Jiao, Chen Chen
AU - Song, Sihui
AU - Li, Ya Xu
AU - Zhang, Yu
AU - Zhao, Yuan Yuan
AU - Li, Xinran
AU - Wang, Zixin
AU - Liu, Yu Fan
AU - Huang, Runzhi
AU - Qin, Jieling
AU - Chen, Yihua
AU - Cao, Hao
AU - Tan, Xiao
AU - Ge, Xin
AU - Jiang, Cong
AU - Xue, Jianhuang
AU - Yuan, Jian
AU - Wu, Dianqing
AU - Wu, Wei
AU - Jiang, Ci Zhong
AU - Wang, Ping
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2026.
PY - 2026/8/27
Y1 - 2026/8/27
N2 - Retraction to: Naturehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08248-5 Published online 20 November 2024 The Editors have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the authenticity of the numerical source data for Fig. 4c,f and Extended Data Figs. 5c,f and 6c,m, which report results for the quantification of γH2AX-positive cells under different experimental conditions. These datasets show unusual similarities within and between figure panels. In addition, concerns were raised about the similarities between the 5hmC and 5fC dot blots in Fig. 3j and Extended Data Fig. 5o, and the Nucleus/Tubulin and Cytoplasm/H3 bands in Extended Data Fig. 2k. Following correspondence with the Authors, additional concerns were identified in the numerical source data for Extended Data Fig. 10b,d,h,n, which also report γH2AX quantification results and show unusual similarities within and between figures, and in the numerical source data for Extended Data Fig. 9i. After careful consideration of the information provided by the authors and the investigation report provided by the Tongji University, the Editors determined that the explanation for the similarities found in the γH2AX quantification data was not satisfactory, that the concerns regarding the authenticity of these data are extensive and persistent, and that the independent confirmation of the paper’s conclusions, as reported to the Journal by the institution, was incomplete. The Editors, therefore, no longer have confidence in the data reported in this article. Ping Wang, Yihua Chen, and Jian Yuan agree with this retraction. Jiali Jin, Tong Meng, Ya-Xu Li, Cong Jiang, and Cizhong Jiang disagree with this retraction. Yuanyuan Yu, Shuheng Wu, Chenchen Jiao, Sihui Song, Yu Zhang, Yuanyuan Zhao, Xinran Li, Zixin Wang, Yu-Fan Liu, Jieling Qin, Hao Cao, Xiao Tan, Xing Ge, Jianhuang Xue, Dianqing Wu, and Wei Wu did not reply to correspondence from the Editors about this retraction. The Editors were unable to contact Ruizhi Huang.
AB - Retraction to: Naturehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08248-5 Published online 20 November 2024 The Editors have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the authenticity of the numerical source data for Fig. 4c,f and Extended Data Figs. 5c,f and 6c,m, which report results for the quantification of γH2AX-positive cells under different experimental conditions. These datasets show unusual similarities within and between figure panels. In addition, concerns were raised about the similarities between the 5hmC and 5fC dot blots in Fig. 3j and Extended Data Fig. 5o, and the Nucleus/Tubulin and Cytoplasm/H3 bands in Extended Data Fig. 2k. Following correspondence with the Authors, additional concerns were identified in the numerical source data for Extended Data Fig. 10b,d,h,n, which also report γH2AX quantification results and show unusual similarities within and between figures, and in the numerical source data for Extended Data Fig. 9i. After careful consideration of the information provided by the authors and the investigation report provided by the Tongji University, the Editors determined that the explanation for the similarities found in the γH2AX quantification data was not satisfactory, that the concerns regarding the authenticity of these data are extensive and persistent, and that the independent confirmation of the paper’s conclusions, as reported to the Journal by the institution, was incomplete. The Editors, therefore, no longer have confidence in the data reported in this article. Ping Wang, Yihua Chen, and Jian Yuan agree with this retraction. Jiali Jin, Tong Meng, Ya-Xu Li, Cong Jiang, and Cizhong Jiang disagree with this retraction. Yuanyuan Yu, Shuheng Wu, Chenchen Jiao, Sihui Song, Yu Zhang, Yuanyuan Zhao, Xinran Li, Zixin Wang, Yu-Fan Liu, Jieling Qin, Hao Cao, Xiao Tan, Xing Ge, Jianhuang Xue, Dianqing Wu, and Wei Wu did not reply to correspondence from the Editors about this retraction. The Editors were unable to contact Ruizhi Huang.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105046296859
U2 - 10.1038/s41586-026-10942-5
DO - 10.1038/s41586-026-10942-5
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:105046296859
SN - 0028-0836
VL - 656
SP - 1064
JO - Nature
JF - Nature
IS - 8129
ER -