Changes

These claims received wide publicity at the time in part because of a December 2010 NASA press-release style video in which presentation and because of Wolfe-Simon's gender, youth and charisma. Experts soon expressed doubts in her claims but Wolfe-Simon delayed sharing samples of CFAJ-1 for a year. In April 2011, [[Time magazine]] named her to their list of 100 most influential people in the world for 2011.<ref>http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2066367_2066369_2066250,00.html</ref> Wolfe-Simon last posted on her Twitter account as "ironlisa" in May 2011.<ref>https://twitter.com/ironlisa</ref>  

These claims received wide publicity at the time in part because of a December 2010 NASA press-release style video in which presentation and because of Wolfe-Simon's gender, youth and charisma. Experts soon expressed doubts in her claims but Wolfe-Simon delayed sharing samples of CFAJ-1 for a year. In April 2011, [[Time magazine]] named her to their list of 100 most influential people in the world for 2011.<ref>http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2066367_2066369_2066250,00.html</ref> Wolfe-Simon last posted on her Twitter account as "ironlisa" in May 2011.<ref>https://twitter.com/ironlisa</ref>  

In 2011, University of British Columbia microbiologist Rosie Redfield, obtained a sample of GFAJ-1 from Wolfe-Simon's team and attempted to replicate the results. Redfield used more traditional laboratory techniques and in August 2011 announce that she failed to reproduce Wolfe-Simon results.

In 2011, University of British Columbia microbiologist Rosie Redfield, obtained a sample of GFAJ-1 from Wolfe-Simon's team and attempted to replicate the results. Redfield used more traditional laboratory techniques and in August 2011 published that she failed to reproduce Wolfe-Simon results.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110809/full/news.2011.469.html</ref>

In 2012, two reports refuting the most significant aspects of the original results were published in the same journal in which the original findings had been previously published.<ref> Erb, T. J.; Kiefer, P.; Hattendorf, B.; Gunther, D.; Vorholt, J. A. (2012). "GFAJ-1 Is an Arsenate-Resistant, Phosphate-Dependent Organism". Science. 337 (6093): 467–470. doi:10.1126/science.1218455</ref><ref>Reaves, M. L.; Sinha, S.; Rabinowitz, J. D.; Kruglyak, L.; Redfield, R. J. (2012). "Absence of Detectable Arsenate in DNA from Arsenate-Grown GFAJ-1 Cells". Science. 337 (6093): 470–473. doi:10.1126/science.1219861.</ref>

In 2012, two reports refuting the most significant aspects of the original results were published in the same journal in which the original findings had been previously published.<ref> Erb, T. J.; Kiefer, P.; Hattendorf, B.; Gunther, D.; Vorholt, J. A. (2012). "GFAJ-1 Is an Arsenate-Resistant, Phosphate-Dependent Organism". Science. 337 (6093): 467–470. doi:10.1126/science.1218455</ref><ref>Reaves, M. L.; Sinha, S.; Rabinowitz, J. D.; Kruglyak, L.; Redfield, R. J. (2012). "Absence of Detectable Arsenate in DNA from Arsenate-Grown GFAJ-1 Cells". Science. 337 (6093): 470–473. doi:10.1126/science.1219861.</ref>