Genome Research cityscape

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Retraction for Bekaert et al., Genome Res. 15 (10) 1411-1420.
Genome Res. 16:1074, 2006
©2006 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; ISSN 1088-9051/06 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Retraction

Retraction

Genome Research 15: 1411–1420 (2005)

Identification of programmed translational –1 frameshifting sites in the genome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Michaël Bekaert, Hugues Richard, Bernard Prum, and Jean-Pierre Rousset

Upon further analyses of some of the potential frameshifting sites reported in this study, the authors find that they are unable to reproduce several of the results reported in Tables 1 and 2. In particular, resequencing of all of the overlapping regions from the candidates presented in Table 2 fails to confirm that the sequence corresponding to candidates 12, 35 and 43 displays the expected frameshifted organization; rather, they are in-frame. They also find that the sequence corresponding to candidate 24 was cloned in-frame and contained an in-frame stop codon, contrary to being in the –1 frame, ruling out any possibility of detecting frameshifting from this sequence. The authors also prepared the correct construct for candidate 43 (YMR084w) and quantified its frameshifting activity in vivo, which occurred at a frequency of 0.05% instead of the previously published 5%. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from these data are not supported by the authors’ subsequent experiments. The authors sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused other investigators in the field and also wish to thank Agnès Baudin-Baillieu and Céline Fabret who performed the experiments described here.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?


Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Genes Dev. Learn. Mem.
Protein Science RNA Genome Res.
Copyright © 2006 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.