15 years later, a bacteria with retracted arsenic

Dams a note published on July 24. Moreover, the review Science Announces withdrawal, that is to say the withdrawal of its archives, research on the GFAJ-1 bacteria, and invokes “faulty data”.

However, one would have believed his fate settled for almost 15 years. Nevertheless, Basically. Consequently, what the researchers, under the direction of the biochemist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, had said in December 2010 that it had identified in the waters of Lake Mono, in California, it was a 15 years later, bacteria retracted bacteria which, against all living beings, had replaced phosphorus, to manufacture its DNA and its proteins, by arsenic. However, A press release from the NASA Astrobiology Institute. which then used Wolfe-Simon, added a layer, proclaiming that GFAJ-1 “widens our understanding of the possibility of life on other planets”.

Quickly, researchers had commented and severely criticized research, published in the online edition of the journal Science. Five months later. Science had delayed the publication of the study in its printed edition, in order to accompany it with no less than eight texts criticizing different methodological aspects and questioning its conclusions. In 2012, Science had published two other research concluding that the bacteria did use phosphorus. And did not integrate arsenic into its DNA.

Contamination in question? – 15 years later, bacteria retracted

In a blog post accompanying the withdrawal note of July 24, the editor -in -chief of ScienceH. Holden Thorp. the director of the series of 15 years later, bacteria retracted journals ScienceValda Vinson, take care to emphasize that there is no suspicion of fraud. But that all post-2011 comments suggest that some of the observations of the original study are the fruit of contamination of the bacteria by arsenic. and not of the use of the arsenic by this bacteria. This is what makes him use the expression “faulty data” (flawed data).

In response, the authors of the original study reject the accusation in question, claiming to stick to their 2010 results.

As for the why of such a late withdrawal. 13 years after the last two articles which seemed to have ended the debate, H. Holden Thorp, who had become editor in 2019, explains that the question of the withdrawal of this study resurfaced regularly since. It would be a request for comments from New York Times At the end of 2024. for an article on Felisa Wolfe-Simon published 15 years later, bacteria retracted in February 2025, which would have engaged the process. What is more. he says, this withdrawal is part of a context where these are more numerous, and the rise of research tools supplied by AI may make such gestures even more necessary. “As long as you have not put the word” retracted “in the title. you do not trigger all the tools of AI”.

Subscribe to our sprawling newsletter

Encourage us for the price of a coffee