miR-30a inhibits glioma progression and stem cell‚Äëlike properties by repression of Wnt5a
Authors: Min Xie
Lichao Li
Yonghong Zhang
Zhi Wu
Journal: Oncology Reports (2017)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: miR-30a; glioma; tumor progression; microRNA; microarray analysis
Affiliations: Department of Neurosurgery, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, P.R. China.

Abstract:  miR-30a has been found to be dysregulated in diverse cancers and involved in the regulation of tumor progression. However, there is scarce research on the role of miR-30a in glioma. In the present study, we assessed the expression level of miR-30a in glioma tissues and cell lines. The microRNA microarray analysis revealed low expression of miR-30a in glioma tissues and cells vs. the control. Furthermore, we found that stable miR-30a inhibited cell proliferation, G1 phase arrest and stem cell-like formation in glioma. Moreover, to investigate the molecular mechanism of miR-30a on glioma cell phenotypes, we identified Wnt5a as a new direct target gene for miR-30a by bioinformatic assay, luciferase assay and western blot analysis. Further functional studies suggested that miR-30a suppressed metastasis, sphere formation and glioma growth by targeting Wnt5a signal pathway. Collectively, our findings suggested for the first time that miR-30a may function as a tumor suppressor in glioma by targeting Wnt5a. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 In Figure 1, three of the panels have been presented in another article by the same group (Pattnaik Subhaswaraj et al., 2017; Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture), but here the experimental setup is different. Link: https: pubpeer.com publications 079417B54046E825EFD16301B9154F# ).  , 
 Dear Author, Thank you for your queries. We already published an erratum corrigendum, as soon as we noticed the errors. These errors are unintentional. This article has a 2018 correction, kindly find here: https: onlinelibrary.wiley.com doi full 10.1002 jsfa.9366 It reads:  The authors of the article u201cDetermination of antioxidant potential of Acacia nilotica leaf extract in oxidative stress response system of Saccharomyces cerevisiaeu201d (DOI: 10.1002 jsfa.8409),1 published in Wiley Online Library on 05 May 2017 and in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 97: 5247u20135253, have drawn our attention to some errors in Figure 5, where the panels C, D and F, G were selfu2010replicated and panels E and H were erroneously represented. The corrected figure is showed below. Here is the original Figure 5, in which I have marked the duplicated panels with boxes of the same color. Comparing the original figure with the text of the correction reveals that the authors did not disclose the observed duplication between panels A and I (marked by me in red). And since panels E and H were erroneously represented , as per the authors statement, am I correct in concluding that perhaps only panels A and B might have been correct? That seems to be a lot of errors in one figure. I d appreciate the authors comments on how the reader can still trust the rest of the data. Reply: As the article u2018Determination of antioxidant potential of Acacia nilotica leaf extract in oxidative stress response system of Saccharomyces cerevisiaeu2019 erroneously represented the figure 5, where the panel C D and F G were self-replicated and panel E H were erroneously reproduced from two panels from the figure 1 in Determination of antioxidant activity of Hibiscus sabdariffa and Croton caudatus in Saccharomyces cerevisiae model system published by Subhaswaraj P, Sowmya M, Bhavana V, Dyavaiah M and Siddhardha B in Journal of Food Science and Technology (54(9):2728-2736, doi:10.1007 s13197-017-2709-2); the figure 5 has been completely verified and replaced with the following figure which has been prepared from one among the triplicate spot assay experiment . In the updated figure, as mentioned in the comments, the panel A and I were also cross-checked and updated with the correct images. Some of the data presented in this article have been used in a different article by the same group, and presented as something else. Reply: As both the works were carried out simultaneously by the same group of researchers, during the figure arrangement few undue errors were reported. Figure 5 has been replaced with an updated figure . Thank you for the queries, kindly cross verify and check before posting an early opinion. ,