‘Manipulated’ Alzheimer’s data may have misled research

THE key theory of what causes Alzheimer’s disease may be based on “manipulated” data that has misdirected dementia research for 16 years – potentially wasting billions of pounds – a major investigation suggests.

The six-month investigation by the journal Science reported “shockingly blatant” evidence of result-tampering in a seminal research paper which proposed that Alzheimer’s is triggered by a buildup of amyloid beta plaques in the brain.

In the 2006 article from the University of Minnesota, published in the journal Nature, scientists claimed to have discovered a type of amyloid beta that brought on dementia in young rats.

It was the first substance identified in brain tissue that could cause memory impairment, and seemed like a smoking gun. The Nature paper became one of the most-cited scientific articles on Alzheimer’s ever published, sparking a huge jump in global funding for research into drugs to clear the plaques.

But the Science investigation claims to have found evidence that images of amyloid beta in mice had been doctored, in allegations branded “extremely serious” by the charity, Alzheimer’s Research UK. Elizabeth Bik, a forensic image consultant, brought in to assess the images, told Science that the authors appeared to have pieced together parts of photos from different experiments.

“The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results and that data might have been changed to … better fit a hypothesis,” she said.

Issues with the research were originally spotted by Dr Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist of Vanderbilt University, Tennessee. In a whistleblower report to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr Schrag warned that the research “has the potential to mislead an entire field of research”.

The journal Science said its own investigation “provided strong support for Schrag’s suspicions”. The claims are being studied by the NIH, which can pass on the matter to the US government’s Office of Research Integrity.

Nature has launched its own investigation and placed a warning on the 2006 article, urging readers to “use caution” when using the results. If proven, such manipulation could mark one of the biggest scientific scandals since Andrew Wakefield, a GP, falsely linked the MMR jab to autism in a 1988 Lancet article.

Dennis Selkoe, professor of neurologic diseases at Harvard University, told Science there was “precious little evidence” that the amyloid found by the Minnesota team even existed. The Minnesota

paper authors claim they “still have faith” that amyloid plays a major causative role in Alzheimer’s.

Dr Sara Imarisio, head of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “Any allegation of scientific misconduct needs to be investigated and dealt with where appropriate … The amyloid protein is at the centre of the most influential theory of how Alzheimer’s disease develops in the brain. But the research that has been called into question is focused on a very specific type of amyloid, and these allegations do not compromise the vast majority of knowledge built up during decades of research into the role of this protein in the disease.”