This paper is marked retracted in the scholarly record (OpenAlex). Interpret its findings with caution.
Retraction Note: RNA editing of BFP, a point mutant of GFP, using artificial APOBEC1 deaminase to restore the genetic code
Sonali Bhakta, Matomo Sakari, Toshifumi Tsukahara

Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCRISPR and Genetic Engineering · RNA regulation and disease
Retraction of: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-020-74374-5, published online 14 October 2020
The Editors have retracted this Article. Concerns were originally raised about Fig. 3A, which was subsequently corrected^1^. Following the correction, additional concerns were identified:
- In the corrected Fig. 3A, the electrophenogram trace contains discontinuous lines that end abruptly;
- The trace shown in corrected Fig. 3A does not appear to match the original plasmid sequence;
- The corrected version of the Article includes a new Supplementary Fig. 6 which appears to acknowledge the off-target editing event that was initially shown in the original Fig. 3A as the targeted editing event. However, it has not been acknowledged that the targeted and untargeted editing sites are only five nucleotides apart, and the two events are shown on separate traces rather than on a single trace. Furthermore, the corrected Article still contains the statement that no off-targeting event had occurred within 21 bp upstream or downstream of the target.
- The original Fig. 3B has been removed from the corrected Fig. 3 that now only shows data from the forward primer. The article, however, still mentions findings with the reverse primer.
The Authors did not provide an explanation for these concerns nor the original data. The Editors, therefore, have lost confidence in the results reported in the Article. All authors agree to this retraction.
