InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 251306
Next 10
Followers 0
Posts 253
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/01/2006

Re: poorgradstudent post# 208213

Thursday, 01/19/2017 2:31:29 PM

Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:31:29 PM

Post# of 251306
Irv Wasserman has a fairly aggressive critique of that "replication" paper in the comment section.

His summary: "In summary, the studies published in the replication report in eLife do not pertain to the title or the major findings of our PNAS paper."

I'm not a cancer biologist so I might be oversimplifying this, but among the issues Wasserman points out are that the Stanford group used primary human cancer samples with minimal xenograft passage, and the replicators used a mouse breast cancer line. The replicators also failed to get a robust transplantation of their own cancer lines in the mice, and therefore didn't have a viable experimental platform in which to test the hypotesis re:CD47. The peer reviewers agreed with this, and some said the replication wasn't publishable without further experiments, but it was published anyway.

Wasserman notes: The beginning of replication is to show experience and competence in the transplantability of the cancer.

After noting several possible reasons why the replicators failed to do this, he says "When the replication study lab interacted with us early on, we offered to do the experiments side by side with them to facilitate technology transfer. Horrigan et al declined. The offer still stands."

Not sure whether CD47 blockade works clincally, but it doesn't seem like this replication paper is of high value or gives much read through to the original Wasserman study.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.