Retracted : Inositol polyphosphate‐4‐phosphatase type II and rucaparib treatment inhibit the growth of osteosarcoma cells dependent on phosphoinositide 3‐kinase/protein kinase B pathway
Authors: Chengliang Sun
Huanzhi Ma
Dong Li
Jingyan Yang
Rongjie Feng
Journal: Journal of Cellular Biochemistry (2018)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: apoptosis; cell viability; inositol polyphosphate-4-phosphatase; osteosarcoma; phosphoinositide 3-kinase/protein kinase B
Affiliations: Department of Orthopedics Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University Jinan China, Department of Pathology The Second Hospital of Shandong University Jinan China, Department of Spinal Surgery Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University Jinan China

Abstract:  Osteosarcoma (OS) is an aggressive malignant tumor of bone, which often occurs in children and adolescents. Currently, the effective method for the treatment of OS is still limited. The study aimed to investigate the synergistic antitumor effect of inositol polyphosphate-4-phosphatase, type-II (INPP4B) and rucaparib on OS cells. The expression levels of INPP4B in OS tissues and OS cell lines were examined by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction and Western blot analysis. SaOS2 and U2OS cells were then transfected with overexpression vector of INPP4B or were treated with different concentrations of rucaparib, and cell viability, cell cycle, and apoptosis were determined by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide and flow cytometry. Western blot assay uncovered the combined effects of INPP4B and rucaparib on cell cycle, apoptosis and phosphoinositide 3-kinase/protein kinase B (PI3K/AKT) signal pathway. Further, the tumor formation was examined in vivo. Results showed that INPP4B was low expressed in OS tissues and in OS cell lines. INPP4B overexpression significantly decreased cell viability and induced apoptosis in SaOS2 and U2OS cells. Additionally, rucaparib remarkably reduced cell viability in a dose-dependent and time-dependent manner. Meanwhile, rucaparib suppressed cell cycle progression in the S phase and promoted apoptosis in a dose-dependent manner. Further, combination of INPP4B overexpression and rucaparib declined Myc, cyclin E1 and cyclin D1 expressions, enhanced Bad, Bax, and cleaved-caspase-3 expressions, and blocked PI3K/AKT signal pathway in SaOS2 and U2OS cells. Finally, combination of INPP4B overexpression and rucaparib inhibited tumor formation in vivo. The study demonstrated that INPP4B and rucaparib exhibited synergistic antitumor effect by regulating PI3K/AKT pathway in OS cells. 

Retracted: Yes

PubPeer comments:
 ![file] Plagiarising [a comment by Elisabeth Bik] : 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 [9 June 2021] . ------------------------ The above article, published online on 21 August 2018 in Wiley Online Library , has been retracted by agreement between the the journal s Editor in Chief, Prof. Dr. Christian Behl, 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. ,