Propofol exerts anticancer activity on hepatocellular carcinoma cells by raising lncRNA DGCR5
Authors: Yan Sun
Hai Sun
Journal: Journal of cellular physiology (2020)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: DiGeorge syndrome critical region gene 5; Raf1/ERK1/2 pathway; Wnt/Œ≤-catenin pathway; anticancer; hepatocellular carcinoma
Affiliations: Department of AnesthesiologyChina‚ÄêJapan Union Hospital of Jilin University Changchun China

Abstract:  Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the most fatal cancers worldwide. Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic extensively used in clinical. Herein, we tested the anticancer activity of propofol on hepatocellular carcinoma, along with the internal molecular mechanism related to lncRNA DiGeorge syndrome critical region gene 5 (DGCR5). Followed by propofol stimulation, hepatocellular carcinoma Huh-7 and HepG2 cell viability, proliferation, migration, invasion, and apoptosis were tested, respectively. Then, DGCR5 expression levels in hepatocellular carcinoma tissues and cells were measured. sh-DGCR5 was transfected to silence DGCR5 expression. Subsequently, the influence of DGCR5 silence on propofol caused Huh-7 and HepG2 cell viability loss, proliferation inhibition, migration and invasion suppression, apoptosis induction, as well as Raf1/ERK1/2 and Wnt/Œ≤-catenin pathways inactivation were assessed, respectively. We discovered that propofol declined Huh-7 and HepG2 cell viability, proliferation, migration and invasion, but increased cell apoptosis. DGCR5 had a relatively lower expression level in hepatocellular carcinoma tissues and cells. Propofol elevated DGCR5 expression in Huh-7 and HepG2 cells. Increased expression of DGCR5 was connected with the anticancer activity of propofol on Huh-7 and HepG2 cells. Besides, propofol repressed Raf1/ERK1/2 and Wnt/Œ≤-catenin pathways through elevating DGCR5 expression. In conclusion, the anticancer activity of propofol on hepatocellular carcinoma was verified in this study. Propofol repressed hepatocellular carcinoma Huh-7 and HepG2 cell growth and metastasis at least by elevating DGCR5 and hereafter inactivating Raf1/ERK1/2 and Wnt/Œ≤-catenin pathways. 

Retracted: Yes

PubPeer comments:
 This paper belongs to a set of over 400 papers (as per February 2020) that share very similar Western blots with tadpole-like shaped bands, the same background pattern, and striking similarities in title structures, paper layout, bar graph design, and - in a subset - flow cytometry panels. Despite these similarities, these papers are authored by researchers from different departments and institutes, with almost no overlap in authors. The list of these papers is available here: https: docs.google.com spreadsheets d 1KXqTAyl4j-jVorFPMD2XRpr76LcIKJ0CVyIvRj0exYQ edit?usp=sharing A more detailed description of this set of papers, suspected to all be generated by a common source, a paper mill , can be found here: * https: forbetterscience.com 2020 01 24 the-full-service-paper-mill-and-its-chinese-customers (January 2020) * https: scienceintegritydigest.com 2020 02 21 the-tadpole-paper-mill (February 2020) The same paper mill has been described in these papers: * Jana Christopher - Systematic fabrication of scientific images revealed - FEBS Letters (2018) - https: febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com doi full 10.1002 1873-3468.13201 * Jennifer A Byrne and Jana Christopher - Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st centuryu2014how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills? - FEBS Letters (2020) - https: febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com doi full 10.1002 1873-3468.13747 , 
 Retracted [4 June 2021] . -------------------------- The above article, published online on 19 September 2019 in Wiley Online Library , has been retracted by agreement between the journal s Editor in Chief, Prof. Dr. Gregg Fields, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed following an investigation based on allegations raised by a third party. Several flaws and inconsistencies between results presented and experimental methods described were found, the editors consider the conclusions of this article to be invalid. The authors collaborated in the investigation initially, but were not available for a final confirmation of the retraction. ,