Capsaicin inhibits the migration and invasion via the AMPK/NF-Œ∫B signaling pathway in esophagus sequamous cell carcinoma by decreasing matrix metalloproteinase-9 expression
Authors: Kun Liu
Min Gao
Yong Guo
Ning Liu
Journal: Bioscience Reports (2019)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: AMPK; Capsaicin; ESCC; cell invasion; cell migration.
Affiliations: Office of Drug Purchase, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, Jining 272000, Shandong, China, Information Technology Centre, Jining Medical University, Jining 272000, Shandong, China, Clinical College, Jining Medical University, Jining 272000, Shandong, China, Clinical Laboratory, Jining No.1 People‚Äôs Hospital, Jining 272100, Shandong, China, Jining Medical University, Jining 272011, Shandong, China

Abstract:  Antitumor activity of Capsaicin has been studied in various tumor types, but its potency in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains to be elucidated. Here, we explored the molecular mechanism of the capsaicin-induced antitumor effects on ESCC Eca109 cells. Eca109 cells were treated with capsaicin in vitro, the migration and invasion capacities were significantly decreased by scratch assay and transwell invasion assay. Meanwhile, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9 (MMP-9) expression levels were also obviously down-regulated by Western blot. However, phosphorylated AMPK levels were significantly up-regulated, and this effect was eliminated by the AMPK inhibitor Compound C treatment. In addition, capsaicin can enhance sirtuin1 (SIRT1) expression, which could activate nuclear factor-Œ∫B (NF-Œ∫B) through deacetylation, and activate AMPK inducing the phosphorylation of IŒ∫BŒ± and nuclear localization of NF-Œ∫B p65. Overall, these results revealed that Capsaicin can inhibit the migration and invasion of ESCC cells via the AMPK/NF-Œ∫B signaling pathway. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Figure 1D. The left two panels represent different Capsaicin concentrations, but the panels appear to show an overlap if one panel is rotated flipped. Shown with red boxes.  , 
 #1 I agree.  , 
 The Editorial Office has been made aware of potential issues surrounding the scientific validity of this paper, hence has issued an expression of concern to notify readers whilst the Editorial Office investigates. , 
 #3 Thank you very much for your question. We have searched the original picture and found that when combine the pictures,the 0uM picture was masked to 25uM.I have provided the original 0uM picture.Thank you again for your effort. We will be more rigorous in the future. Thank you.!] , 
 Dear Dr. Min Gao, thank you so much for your reply. However, I do not see the original  0uM picture here. Do you mean that you will issue a correction with the journal? , 
 We have submitted the 0uM picture to the journal.Thank yoy , 
 I find hard to believe that a rotated flipped image was overlapped with another one having the correct orientation. I assume that both images were taken with the same device and processed with the same soft. **Both** original 0 uM and 25 uM pictures must be posted here, if possible including metadata. , 
 First of all, thank you for your comment again. Our pictures are not rotated, and during the process of taking pictures, you can take a closer look because of the rotation of the photographed objects, but we can be sure that we are still rigorous in research. At the same time, thank you very much for pointing out, we will be more careful and serious in the future, thank you. Both original 0 uM and 25 uM pictures have been posted here.   , 
 Thank you Dr. Gao, for reassuring us that you do not rotate your images and that you are still rigorous in research. Now, can we talk about Figures 1C and 5A? * Blue boxes: I appear to see the same wound assay sample four times, two times in Figure 1C and two times in Figure 5A, if accounting for shifting, stretching, rotating, and mirroring. * Green boxes: there might also be an overlap between the 50 and 100 uM panels in Figure 1C.  , 
 #9 Thank you for your comment, I need to check the original data and the person who completed it, check it out and reply to you, thank you , 
 #10 After asking my team, my team members had already sent a modified picture to the editor about this picture issue earlier this year, but the editor did not respond. This is the new picture we submitted that time. You can view it. However, as a supervisor, I am also responsible for the emergence of this problem. There must be no such mistakes in academic research. Thank you again for your contribution, thank you.  , 
 #11 But the D you posted here looks like still the uncorrected image?  , 
 Sorry, forgot to modify this, thank you for reminding again. , 
 Thank you Dr. Gao. With four sets of photos (eight panels) now suspected of being duplicated, trust in the rest of the paper might be lost as well. Although you assured us that your work is rigorous, there are a lot of errors found so far. A good course of action, one that many senior authors have received praise and respect for, is to retract the paper, carefully redo the experiments, and resubmit the paper. , 
 #14 Agree. With flipping and cropping images, and multiple cases all within a single manuscript, it s very unlikely to convince readers the credibility of the reported data. , 
 #14 Thank you very much for your hard work. Our scientific research attitude must be rigorous. As a member of the team, I am very responsible for such low-level mistakes. I am arranging related matters. Thank you again for your efforts. Thank you , 
 Retracted [22 April 2021](10.1042 BSR-20190819_RET). -------------------------------------------- This Retraction follows an Expression of Concern relating to this article previously published by Portland Press. This article is being retracted from Bioscience Reports at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board following receipt of a notification from several readers, alerting the Editorial Board to duplications in Figures 1C, 1D and 5A. The authors have been contacted by the Journal specifically in regard to the retraction, but have not responded directly to the queries and concerns raised. Given the extent of the issues raised, the Editorial Board stand by the decision to retract the article. , 
 #17 We are very disappointed with this withdrawal, and we have not received any information? We have paid a heavy price for our carelessness in organizing the pictures. We support a rigorous scientific attitude. However, for our positive response to your questions, I feel that this kind of thing really disappoints us. The whole team also feels very sad . , 
 #18 One thing that confuses me Dr. Min Gao is your rather extraordinary email address attached to this paper. It has nothing to do with your affiliation to either of your research institutes in Jining. The address is XY123456@126.com where I have substituted in X and Y for this comment. I find those numbers in the email moniker rather unusual for a research scientist. Presumably, though, that email is linked to your unambiguous ORCID identifier? Would you care to explain to us why you did not feel able to use one of your institutional emails to communicate with the journal for a paper produced from work done in either or both of those institutes? ,