界面新闻记者从《自然-生物技术》（Nature Biotechnology）了解到，韩春雨等人发表在该杂志的题为《利用NgAgo进行DNA引导的基因组编辑》的论文已于北京时间8月3日撤稿了。

当天，《自然-生物技术》在题为《是该数据说话的时候了》的社论中表示，“我们现在确信韩春雨的撤稿决定是维护已发表科研记录完整性的最好做法。”

《自然-生物技术》同时还发布了韩春雨团队的撤稿声明：由于科研界一直无法根据我们论文提供的实验方案重复出论文图4所示的关键结果，我们决定撤回这项研究。在该图中，我们报告说，利用5′磷酸化单链DNA作为引导，NgAgo（Natronobacterium gregoryi Argonaute）能够有效引起双链断裂，并对人体细胞基因组进行编辑。虽然许多实验室都进行了努力（Protein Cell 7, 913-915, 2016; Nat. Biotechnol.35, 17-18, 2017; Cell Res.26, 1349-1352, 2016; PLOS One 12, e0177444, 2017) ，但是没有独立重复出这些结果的报告。因此，我们现在撤回我们的最初报告，以维护科学记录的完整性。不过，我们会继续调查该研究缺乏可重复性的原因，以提供一个优化的实验方案。

8月3日，河北科技大学也在其官网发布声明称，韩春雨团队同意按学校安排选择一家第三方实验室，在同行专家支持下开展实验，验证NgAgo-gDNA基因编辑的有效性，并将实验结果公布，以回应社会关切。

此外，鉴于该论文已撤稿，学校决定启动对韩春雨该项研究成果的学术评议及相关程序。

2016年5月2日，河北科技大学生物科学与工程学院生命科学系副教授韩春雨与合作者在《自然-生物技术》发表上述论文。该论文称，短5′磷酸化单链DNA可引导格氏嗜盐碱杆菌核酸内切酶（NgAgo）产生双链断裂，实现对人类基因组的编辑。

论文一发表，便引起科研人员的极大兴趣和媒体的竞相报道。但是很快，在推特、博客和其它社交媒体的助燃之下，有关该研究可重复性的质疑开始迅速增多。

2016年7月29日，多名外国学者公开指出，无法重复韩春雨NgAgo系统的基因编辑结果，建议《自然生物技术》杂志介入，要求韩春雨公开原始数据。

2016年11月，《自然-生物技术》发表了“编辑部关注”，提醒科研界留意这些可重复性方面的担忧，还表示将继续与原论文作者保持联系，并在2017年1月底之前完成对论文调查。

“为了最终解决这个争议，多个研究小组在数月里生成了更多的实验数据。如今尘埃落定，这也是世界各地的许多实验室为澄清NgAgo的功能而付出的大量时间、精力和资金的证明。”《自然-生物技术》在8月3日的社论中说。

在该杂志编辑们的协调下，三个独立小组的成果形成了一篇单独的反驳性论文，并通过了同行评议(Nat. Biotechnol.34, 768–773, 2016)。“有了这些数据，我们就有充分的理由去提醒读者留意该论文可能存在问题。” 

《自然-生物技术》表示，2016年12月，韩春雨及同事，还有另外几个与该刊联系的独立研究小组，提供了新的数据，称已经重复了NgAgo基因编辑活性。当时，该刊编辑和一位外部评审人都判定这些数据太过初级，不满足发表标准。因此，该杂志“决定给这些原始论文作者和新的研究小组更多时间来收集更多的能支持其论点的实验证据。”

“现在，距原论文发表已过去了一年多，我们了解到当初曾报告说初步成功重复出实验结果的独立研究小组，无法强化初始数据，使其达到可发表的水平。类似的，在征求专家评审人的反馈意见后，我们判定韩春雨及同事提供的最新数据不足以反驳大量与其初始发现相悖的证据。”《自然-生物技术》在社论中称。

《自然-生物技术》8月刊社论全文——

Time for the data to speak

是该数据说话的时候了

Retraction of a study claiming gene editing via an Argonaute enzyme illustrates the importance of post-publication peer review in the age of 24/7 media.

一项宣称通过Argonaute酶实现基因编辑的研究被撤回，这显示了论文发表后的同行评议在全天候媒体时代的重要性。

This issue, Chunyu Han and colleagues retract a paper published last May claiming that an Argonaute protein (NgAgo) from the archea Natronobacterium gregoryi can be guided by short 5′ phosphorylated single-stranded DNAs to generate double-stranded breaks and edit the human genome. Although the paper was initially greeted with enthusiasm from researchers and intense media interest, speculation quickly grew as to its reproducibility, fueled by Twitter, blogs and other social media. Last November, this journal issued an Editorial Expression of Concern (EEoC) to alert the community to these reproducibility concerns. Final resolution of the controversy necessitated the generation of additional experimental data from several groups over many months. That a retraction is now issued is testament to the considerable time, effort and funds invested by many laboratories around the globe who have sought to clarify NgAgo’s function.

本期，韩春雨及同事撤回了发表于去年5月的一篇论文。该论文称，短5′磷酸化单链DNA可引导格氏嗜盐碱杆菌核酸内切酶（NgAgo）产生双链断裂，实现对人类基因组的编辑。论文一发表，便引起科研人员的极大兴趣和媒体的竞相报道。但是很快，在推特、博客和其它社交媒体的助燃之下，有关该研究可重复性的质疑开始迅速增多。去年11月，本刊发表了“编辑部关注”（Editorial Expression of Concern），提醒科研界留意这些可重复性方面的担忧。为了最终解决这个争议，多个研究小组在数月里生成了更多的实验数据。如今尘埃落定，这也是世界各地的许多实验室为澄清NgAgo的功能而付出的大量时间、精力和资金的证明。

It is hard to overstate the impact of the Han paper following its publication last year, especially in China, where the paper originated. Coverage in the Chinese media was extensive, with headlines heralding the discovery of an entirely new gene editing system. NgAgo was easily the most widely covered paper in China last year; according to media monitor Meltwater, nearly 4000 Chinese news stories cited the Han paper in just the first two months after publication.

韩春雨的这篇论文自去年发表后所产生的影响力，再怎么夸张地说也不为过，尤其是在论文的来源地中国。中国媒体纷纷进行报道，以大标题宣告一项全新基因编辑系统的发现。这无疑是一篇中国去年被报道最多的论文；媒体监测公司融文（Meltwater）的数据显示，仅在论文发表后的最初两个月，就有将近4000篇相关的中文新闻报道。

The excitement generated by NgAgo centered on its potential to complement, or perhaps even supersede, the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system. NgAgo promised gene editing that required only a single target sequence (Cas9 needs both the target sequence and an adjacent additional recognition (PAM) sequence). What’s more, initial data suggested advantages in terms of enhanced stability of the guide (DNA compared with RNA for Cas9), improved specificity, reduced off-target editing of the genome, improved activity in GC-rich regions of the genome and used reagents that were easier to synthesize and handle.

NgAgo的轰动之处集中在它有可能补充，甚至取代CRISPR/Cas9基因编辑系统之一点上。NgAgo有望以一个目标序列进行基因编辑（Cas9不仅需要目标序列，还需要另外一个附近的识别（PAM）序列）。而且，初始数据还显示了它在其它方面的优势，如引物的稳定性更强（DNA相对于Cas9采用的RNA），增强特异性，减少基因组编辑脱靶，改善在基因组富含GC区域的活性，以及使所用的试剂更易于合成和处理。

If all this sounded too good to be true, the failure last summer of an increasing number of labs to reproduce the genome editing activity reported in the Han paper started to raise doubts. The paper became one of the most hotly discussed topics at genome editing conferences, news groups and e-mail lists. It didn’t take long before the press took notice and claims and counter claims regarding the validity of the initial report were exchanged. Our internal image integrity screening process found no obvious anomalies in the Han paper, a finding echoed by three external reviewers who re-examined the data.

如果说这一切都听上去太过美好而令人难以置信，那么去年夏天以来，随着越来越多的实验室无法重复该论文所报告的基因组编辑功能，质疑声便开始出现了。在各种基因组编辑会议上，在新闻讨论组和电子邮件中，这篇论文成为最热话题之一。这很快便引起媒体注意，有关该初始报告有效性的正反两方面的声音开始交锋。我们内部的图像完整性筛查没有发现韩春雨论文的明显异常，复查数据的三位外部评审人也持相同观点。

Meanwhile, Nature Biotechnology kept in contact with the community about ongoing efforts to replicate the paper.Ultimately, the editors were able to coordinate the work of three independent groups into a single peer-reviewed refutation paper (Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 768–773, 2016). With these data in hand, we then had sufficient cause to alert our readers to potential problems with the paper via an official Editorial Expression of Concern, which appeared alongside the original paper online—a step that was supported by two of the authors, including Han.

在此期间，《自然-生物技术》一直与科研界保持联络，关注各种为重复论文所做的持续努力。最终，在编辑们的协调下，三个独立小组的成果形成了一篇单独的反驳性论文，并通过了同行评议(Nat. Biotechnol.34, 768–773, 2016)。有了这些数据，我们就有充分的理由去提醒读者留意该论文可能存在问题，我们将正式的“编辑部关注”发表在该篇论文所在的网址上，此举得到包括韩春雨在内的两位论文作者的支持。

We also asked the authors if they could shed light on why the community was having difficulties reproducing their results. Accordingly, last December, Han and colleagues and several additional independent groups who contacted the journal provided new data claiming to have reproduced NgAgo gene editing activity. At the time, these data were judged too preliminary by the editors and an external reviewer to warrant publication. We decided to give the original authors and new groups more time to gather additional experimental evidence to bolster their claims.

我们也询问了论文作者是否可以解答科研界为何难以重复他们的结果。于是，去年12月，韩春雨及同事，还有另外几个与本刊联系的独立研究小组，提供了新的数据，称已经重复了NgAgo基因编辑活性。当时，本刊编辑和一位外部评审人都判定这些数据太过初级，不满足发表标准。因此，我们决定给这些原始论文作者和新的研究小组更多时间来收集更多的能支持其论点的实验证据。

Now, more than a year after the publication of the original report, we have learned that the independent groups that reported initial success in reproducing the results have not been able to bolster their preliminary data to a publishable level. Similarly, after seeking feedback from expert reviewers, we have concluded that the latest data from Han and his colleagues are insufficient to counter the substantial body of evidence that contradicts their initial findings. We are now convinced that Han’s decision to retracting the paper is the best course of action to support the integrity of the published record.

现在，距原论文发表已过去了一年多，我们了解到当初曾报告说初步成功重复出实验结果的独立研究小组，无法强化初始数据，使其达到可发表的水平。类似的，在征求专家评审人的反馈意见后，我们判定韩春雨及同事提供的最新数据不足以反驳大量与其初始发现相悖的证据。我们现在确信韩春雨的撤稿决定是维护已发表科研记录完整性的最好做法。

Publication of the NgAgo paper was not the end of the scientific process, it was the start. Like any other report that appears in the literature, it is the wider research community that tests methods, identifies potential sources of error, validates reagents and optimizes assays. In this case, it took several dedicated individuals to work through the details of the published protocol and produce well documented and controlled refutation studies (Protein Cell 7, 913, 2016; Cell Res. 26, 1349–1352, 2016; PLoS ONE, 12, e0177444, 2017).

这篇有关NgAgo的论文发表出来，并不是科研过程的结束，而是开始。与任何其它发表出来的报告一样，正是广大的科研共同体对相关方法进行了检验，识别潜在的错误来源，验证试剂并优化试验。在本例中，有多位敬业的研究者个人对已发表实验方法的各种细节进行检验，并完成记录翔实和有对照组的反驳性研究 (Protein Cell 7, 913, 2016; Cell Res.26, 1349–1352, 2016; PLoS ONE, 12, e0177444, 2017)。 

NgAgo also illustrates the pros and cons of social media. Clearly, these platforms were valuable for rapidly alerting the wider scientific community to problems with the paper. But they also raised expectations that issues around this paper were straightforward and could be solved quickly. Unraveling all the issues surrounding NgAgo didn’t happen in weeks or a few months for a reason. Even simple experiments take weeks to prepare, perform, analyze and troubleshoot. It does not help that the efforts of those carrying out replication studies often go unrewarded—it is unglamorous, unfunded and thankless work.

这篇NgAgo论文也显示了社交媒体的利与弊。显然，这些平台对于迅速提醒广大科学界留意该论文可能存在的问题发挥了重要作用。但是，它们也抬高了人们的预期，以为有关这篇论文的问题是直截了当，可以快速解决的。然而，关于NgAgo的各种问题是无法在几个星期或几个月内就能澄清的，这是有原因的。即使是简单的实验也需要花费数周来准备、实施、分析和解决出现的问题。另外于事无益的是，那些进行可重复性研究的人，其付出的努力往往得不到回报——这样的工作单调乏味，没有资金支持，还吃力不讨好。

Little wonder then that to a 24/7 media and public that desire quick, definitive answers, the process of post-publication peer review can seem frustratingly slow. But when it comes to biology, answers are often not definitive. And when it comes to replication studies, the one thing we know is that it takes time. In the case of NgAgo, the time has now come and the data have spoken.

难怪在希望得到快速、明确答案的全天候媒体和公众眼中，论文发表后的同行评议流程似乎慢得让人沮丧。但是，当涉及生物学时，往往没有明确的答案。当研究重复性时，有一点我们是知道的，那就是这需要花时间来做。就这篇有关NgAgo的论文而言，现在是时候了，数据已经说话了。