GRAPHIC: K. FRANKLIN/
SCIENCE
SCIENCE science.org 6 MAY 2022 • VOL 376 ISSUE 6593 565
F
or 3 decades, biochemist Charles
Serhan at Brigham and Women’s Hos-
pital has been the torch bearer for
“resolution immunology”—a research
field he pioneered after discovering
the first molecules that seem to tamp
down, or resolve, inflammation, the body’s
rapid cellular and chemical response to in-
juries, infections, and even allergens. Ever
since, research on these stop signals, for-
mally known as specialized pro-resolving
mediators (SPMs), has exploded (Science,
2 January 2015, p. 18).
Scientists around the world have im-
plicated multiple classes of these lipid-
based molecules in all manner of diseases.
A search on PubMed for “lipoxin,” the
first SPM identified, turns up more than
2200 papers, and at least three biotech com-
panies are planning clinical trials with syn-
thetic molecules meant to restore or boost
the body’s natural ability to end inflamma-
tion, which can wreak havoc if prolonged.
But what if a large chunk of the research
on SPMs is based on flawed science?
Last month, in a paper in Frontiers in
Pharmacology, an international group of
18 scientists including specialists in lipid
analysis argued that the studies identifying
these molecules in people typically detect
them at levels so low they are unlikely to
play a major role in resolving inflamma-
tion. The critics also found that most stud-
ies of human samples merely correlate
SPM levels with a phase during the arclike
time course of inflammation; data proving
SPMs actually resolve it are weak to non-
existent, the authors argue.
The paper’s authors offered an even
more damning critique: Protocols devel-
oped by Serhan and his collaborators to
detect SPMs in body fluids or tissue sam-
ples don’t conform to accepted standards,
they say. What is provided as proof of SPMs
in many papers should actually be inter-
preted as mere “noise,” they argue. “You
cannot ignore the fact that there is a grow-
ing number of analytical chemists who
cannot detect these things,” says Nils Helge
Schebb, chair of food chemistry at the Uni-
versity of Wuppertal and lead author.
Even some scientists who didn’t join the
broadside have struggled. Immunology re-
searcher Derek Gilroy of University College
London, who has collaborated with Serhan
but is now moving his lab away from SPMs,
tells Science he has had a “very negative
experience working with these things and
seen some data that makes me question
whether these things are real.”
The concerns over the detection methods,
Science has learned from several sources,
have prompted investigations at Harvard
Medical School, the parent organization of
Serhan’s hospital, and at Queen Mary Uni-
versity of London (QMUL), where molecu-
lar pharmacologist Jesmond Dalli, a former
Serhan postdoc, now studies lipid mediators.
Neither university would confirm the
probes to Science. The criticisms in the Fron-
tiers commentary are “not true,” Serhan said
in an email. “Many others have indeed de-
tected SPMs in human samples.” A single
critical paper compared with thousands on
SPMs “is not a valid comparison of the facts.
It’s not clear to me what the goal of their ‘re-
view’ is because it’s totally wrong.”
“I am baffled,” adds QMUL immuno-
pharmacologist Mauro Perretti, who stud-
ies SPMs independently of Dalli but also
collaborates with Serhan. “SPMs exist, they
have been characterized in multiple ways,
they have been synthesized, and they are
active.” SPM proponents also note that ani-
mal studies and one human trial have al-
ready yielded hints that synthetic versions
of the molecules work as advertised.
SEARCHING FOR SIGNALS
Serhan has been studying inflammation
since his postdoc years at the Karolinska
Institute. In 1984, he discovered a novel
fatty acid made by the body. Over time, he
and his collaborators piled up evidence that
the molecule, which they dubbed lipoxin,
could shut down inflammation. At the time
researchers believed inflammation just dis-
sipated, like a crowd after an event. Serhan
argued instead that lipoxin and other mol-
ecules actively end the response, like riot
police arriving to disperse the crowd. Since
then, his lab and others around the world
have found and characterized more than
20 other types of lipid-based biochemicals
that form four SPM classes—lipoxins, re-
solvins, maresins, and protectins.
Schebb began to look for SPMs about
6 years ago but had trouble detecting any
of them in human samples. He visited
Dalli’s lab, looking for advice, but says
“they didn’t teach me anything that
helped.” Schebb soon learned that several
other scientists also had trouble detecting
SPMs, and he became increasingly skepti-
cal of the research.
Enter Valerie O’Donnell, a lipid bio-
chemist at Cardiff University. About
3 years ago, when reviewing papers on
SPMs, O’Donnell noticed a few “strange”
looking figures showing the results of liq-
uid chromatography mass spectrometry
(LCMS), which separates a sample’s mo-
lecular contents into ions with distinct
molecular masses, producing a chart called
a chromatogram. These diagrams are sup-
posed to show a sharp peak representing
a detected molecule. But when O’Donnell
looked at high-resolution images of
By Gunjan Sinha
BIOMEDICINE
Doubt cast on inflammation’s stop signals
Critics challenge data underpinning “resolution immunology,” triggering university probes
Time (minutes)
0
Relative intensity (%)
100
Suggested peak
Disputed lipid detection in sample
Noise
Height of
peak signal
above noise
0
Relative intensity (%)
100
Time (minutes)
Test lipid
Point of contention
To be content a sample contains a molecule such
as a lipid, scientists usually require a sharp peak, far
above the noise, in data from liquid chromatography
mass spectrometry (top). Critics of research on
inflammation-resolving lipids say several chromato-
grams in one paper don’t show a clear peak (bottom).
0506NewsInDepth_15558970.indd 565 5/3/22 5:45 PM