RETRACTED ARTICLE: Silencing UNC5B antisense lncRNA 1 represses growth and metastasis of human Colon cancer cells via raising miR-622
Authors: Zhen Li
Yan Zhang
Zhi Lan
Journal: Artificial Cells Nanomedicine and Biotechnology (2020)
Discipline: BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Keywords: AMPK pathway; Colon cancer; MicroRNA-622; PI3K/AKT pathway; UNC5B antisense lncRNA 1
Affiliations: Department of Pathology, Huaihe Hospital, Henan University, Kaifeng, China, Department of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China

Abstract:  Background: Colon cancer is the most frequently lethal cancer in digestive system. Herein, we tested the influences of UNC5B antisense lncRNA 1 (UNC5B-AS1) on colon cancer cell growth and metastasis, along with the regulatory function of UNC5B-AS1 in microRNA-622 (miR-622) expression.Methods: Firstly, UNC5B-AS1 expression in colon cancer tissues and corresponding normal tissues were tested. Then, the influences of silencing UNC5B-AS1 by sh-UNC5B-AS1 transfection on colon cancer HCT116 and Caco-2 cell viability, proliferation, migration, invasion and apoptosis, as well as miR-622 expression were assessed, respectively. Subsequently, whether miR-622 attended to the influences of silencing UNC5B-AS1 on HCT116 and Caco-2 cells were probed. Finally, the activities of AMPK and PI3K/AKT pathways in cells were analysed.Results: UNC5B-AS1 had high expression level in colon cancer tissues. Silencing UNC5B-AS1 repressed HCT116 and Caco-2 cell proliferation, migration and invasion, but boosted cell apoptosis. Moreover, silencing UNC5B-AS1 raised miR-622 expression in HCT116 and Caco-2 cells. miR-622 inhibitor transfection weakened the influences of silencing UNC5B-AS1 on HCT116 and Caco-2 cells. Besides, Silencing UNC5B-AS1 suppressed AMPK and PI3K/AKT pathways via raising miR-622.Conclusion: Silencing UNC5B-AS1 repressed colon cancer growth and metastasis might be through raising miR-622 expression and suppressing AMPK and PI3K/AKT pathways. 

Retracted: Yes

PubPeer comments:
 If I may plagiarise [Elisabeth M. Bik] : *The Western blots and other figures in this paper have an interesting layout that appears to be shared with many other papers, as discussed in a January 2020 post on Leonid Schneider s blog: https: forbetterscience.com 2020 01 24 the-full-service-paper-mill-and-its-chinese-customers * *The list of these papers is available here: https: docs.google.com spreadsheets d 1KXqTAyl4j-jVorFPMD2XRpr76LcIKJ0CVyIvRj0exYQ edit?usp=sharing* *In almost all papers, Western blot panels within the same figure, and across figures and papers, appear to share the same background, while the bands are regularly spaced, all have similar rounded edges without the usual smudges and specks, and with some bands showing a recognizable  jumping sardine shape.* *Also in almost all papers, bar graphs show a characteristic layout with bars in solid shades of grey, and the left most bar in black, as well as double-edged error bars. Many papers have  cell viability and  apoptotic cells graphs.* *In some of these papers, including this one, flow cytometry plot show a unnaturally dense and well defined  hairball of events in Q3 with a few regularly spaced events in Q1 and Q2.* In this case the FACS apoptosis plots are Figs 3(d), where two of the panels are identical... ![file] ... and 6(e). ![file] Dr Bik s characterisation leaves out the lack of relationship between the appearance of these scatterplots and the percentage scores for each quadrant. Here, for instance, Q2 contains 8 cells points while Q1 contains 11, plus a blur of points from the upper edge of the hairball that has spilled across the axis from Q3. How to reconcile this with the stated percentages? ![file] Here q2 contains 6 points; Q1 contains 7, plus a blurred-together mass from the upper edge of the Q3 hairball. The numbers are not even approximately correct. ![file] , 
 April 2021 retraction: https: www.tandfonline.com doi full 10.1080 21691401.2021.1899415 It reads:  Since publication, concerns have been raised about the integrity of the data in the article. When approached for an explanation, the authors have been unable to verify their original data or answer our questions about research ethics and the informed consent process. We also have concerns regarding the integrity of the authorship, as one of the co-authors has stated they did not consent to being listed as an author. We are therefore retracting this article and all authors listed in this publication have been informed. ,