Long noncoding RNA MNX1-AS1 overexpression promotes the invasion and metastasis of gastric cancer through repressing CDKN1A
Authors: X-Y He
J-X Ma
Y-W Qian
Y-L Yang
Z Wang
X-M Pan
Journal: European review for medical and pharmacological sciences (2019)
Discipline: PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
Keywords: lncRNA; MNX1-AS1; gastric cancer; metastasis; invasion
Affiliations: Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China. .

Abstract:  Objective: Recently, long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have attracted much attention for their roles in tumor progression. The aim of this study was to investigate the specific role of lncRNA MNX1-AS1 in the development of gastric cancer (GC), and to explore the underlying mechanism. Patients and methods: MNX1-AS1 expression in both GC cells and tissue samples was detected by Real Time-quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR). Moreover, the relationship between MNX1-AS1 expression and the overall survival rate of GC patients was explored. Furthermore, wound healing assay and transwell assay were conducted. In addition, the underlying mechanism of MNX1-AS1 in GC was explored by performing RT-qPCR and Western blot assay. Results: MNX1-AS1 expression in GC samples was significantly higher than that of the corresponding normal tissues. Meanwhile, MNX1-AS1 expression was associated with the overall survival time of GC patient. Moreover, the migration and invasion of GC cells were markedly promoted after MNX1-AS1 overexpression in vitro. The mRNA and protein expressions of CDKN1A were remarkably down-regulated after MNX1-AS1 overexpression. Furthermore, the expression level of CDKN1A was negatively correlated with the expression of MNX1-AS1 in GC tissues. Conclusions: Our results suggested that MNX1-AS1 could enhance the metastasis and invasion of GC cells via suppressing CDKN1A. Furthermore, MNX1-AS1 might be a potential therapeutic target for GC. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 This paper is one of a set of 121 papers that all contain images from the same library of about 100 photos and plots. This is unexpected, because each paper has different authors and different affiliations, with little to no overlap, and describes different cancer types and molecules. It would be very hard to explain how authors from different labs would all obtain the same photo. Therefore, the papers might have all be derived from the same source, such as a paper mill that sells ready-to-be-published papers. This  Stock Photo paper set has been described in more detail on my blog post, https: scienceintegritydigest.com 2020 07 05 the-stock-photo-paper-mill and in a Wall Street Journal article by Eva Xiao (currently behind a paywall): https: www.wsj.com articles chinese-research-papers-raise-doubts-fueling-global-questions-about-scientific-integrity-11593939600 The vast majority (113 121) of the papers were published in the same journal, European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences (ERMPS). A link to the full set of papers can be found here: https: docs.google.com spreadsheets d 172RWS18w1lTNJ9Nnj80fuXXTqTm4fGkoK0sdYyvKE3g edit?usp=sharing All papers have been reported to the journal editors on July 2, 2020. , 
 An additional concern: Figure 3 shows two sets of panels that appear to overlap with each other. * Red boxes: one set of overlapping panels match the  TW16 - Golf Course photo * Blue boxes: another set of panels do not match one of the photos recognized as a Stock Photo, but they do show an overlap.  , 
 An additional concern: The paper was published in **June 2019** (the publisher does not record when it was submitted or how long was spend in editorial review). We are informed that  52 GC patients who received surgery at the Gansu Provincial Hospital from **July 2015 to December 2017** were enrolled in this study. We further learn from Fig 1B that the survival at least two subjects were followed for a full **5 years** after recruitment, i.e. through to **July 2020** at the earliest. Was a time machine involved?  Only three time-points are noted in 1B where patients dropped out or became unavailable but interpreting that adds further ambiguity. ,