Long non-coding RNA UCA1 exerts growth modulation by miR-15a in human thyroid cancer TPC-1 cells
Authors: Dandan Li
Jing Zhang
Shuai Hao
Journal: Artificial Cells Nanomedicine and Biotechnology (2019)
Discipline: BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Keywords: EMT; UCA1; miR-15a; proliferation; thyroid cancer.
Affiliations: Department of Endocrinology, Jining No.1 People's Hospital, Jining, China

Abstract:  Thyroid cancer is widely diagnosed as malignancy in endocrine system. This study attempted to validate UCA1 possessed modulatory function on cell proliferation and epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT) in human thyroid cancer cell line TPC-1. Ectopic expression of UCA1 was induced in TPC-1 cells by transfection. CCK-8 assays were employed to value cell viability. Cell apoptosis analysis was conducted through flow cytometry. We found that overexpressed UCA1 strongly promoted cell proliferation. However, the knockdown of UCA1 suppressed cell proliferation and induced obvious cell apoptosis. Besides, cell EMT was promoted by overexpressed UCA1 and was inhibited by the knockdown of UCA1. Further study revealed that miR-15a level in TPC-1 cells was suppressed by overexpressed UCA1. Simultaneous overexpression of UCA1 and miR-15a partly alleviated UCA1-induced growth, identifying that miR-15a was a possible target of UCA1. At last, the Hippo and JNK signal pathways were activated by overexpressed UCA1 but were then weakened by the adding of miR-15a. In conclusion, our study revealed UCA1/miR-15a axis implicated in thyroid cancer cells EMT, exposing a novel mechanism of thyroid cancer progression. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Non-uniform data (MAGNIFICATIONS and dates) are given for 3 FESEM images. Please clarify! ![file] , 
 Looking at the time stamps, it is clear that Figures 1 and 2 were acquired on the same day that is on 14th Dec 2017 and the Figure 3 was acquired on 5th April, 2018. It is not clear that what is so confusing for the commenter in #1. Is the commenter expecting that all the 3 images should have been taken on the same day or is it that the date stamp on the images is much older than the publication date. The text in the manuscript clearly tells that the above 3 figures show 3 different types of Nano-particles: Alumina Nano-particles (Fig 1), Copper Oxide Nano-Particles (2), and Zinc Oxide Nano-Particles (3). It should also be noted that these 3 Nano-Particles are entirely different in terms of composition as well as preparation; hence, it is quite possible that the alumina and copper oxide Nano-particles were synthesized and imaged at the same time while the zinc oxide Nano-particles were synthesized and imaged later. This is very normal since all the Nano-particles are made up of different raw-materials. Now, if the question is about the images being captured in 2017 2018 and the publication coming out in 2020, it is point-less to assume that if the images are captured in 2017 2018 then the paper should have also been published in the same year. Considering the time taken for performing all the other experiments in the manuscript, acquiring all that data, preparing the manuscript, and lastly not to forget the time manuscript might have taken to finally get published (number of different journals to which the paper was sent, the time taken for the review process, time taken for revising the manuscript as per the comments from experts, proofreading, etc). Given all of these factors it is not wise to expect that the manuscript should have been published immediately as and when the data were acquired. Coming to the second issue, 150.00 k x magnification means 150,000.00 x magnification and not 150.000 x magnification. This can also be confirmed from the website of any leading SEM manufacturing company. The stamp on Figure 1 is matching with the text in section 2 which mentions u201cThe images were taken at 200,000 u00d7 magnification to determine the shape and size of the nanoparticlesu201d. However, the stamps on Figures 2 and 3 are not matching with the text and it appears that this is an inadvertent minor typo which can be ignored as the images are of sufficient magnification resolution for visualization and characterization of the nano-particles. To summarize, in my opinion, the concerns posted by commenter in #1 appear to be weak and superficial and I do not see any concerns in the data presented in this publication. , 
 IRRELEVANT REFERENCE is given! ![file] ,