Sinomenine hydrochloride exerts antitumor outcome in ovarian cancer cells by inhibition of long non-coding RNA HOST2 expression
Authors: Fei Wang
Yuting Xu
Tao Jiang
Changhe Wang
Journal: Artificial Cells Nanomedicine and Biotechnology (2019)
Discipline: BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Keywords: HOST2; Ovarian cancer; apoptosis; cell viability; sinomenine hydrochloride.
Affiliations: Department of Gynecology, Jining No.1 People’s Hospital, Jining, China

Abstract:  Background: Accumulating evidence displays that sinomenine hydrochloride (SH) are utilised to treat a variety of cancers. Nevertheless, the influences of SH on ovarian cancer stay blurry. We endeavoured to uncover the antitumor effects of SH on ovarian cancer and underlying mechanism(s).Methods: Human ovarian epithelial cell line (HOEpiC), Caov3 and SKOV3 cells were administrated with SH and/or transfection with pc-long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) human ovarian cancer-specific transcript 2 (HOST2), then cell viability, cell cycle and apoptosis and the related-proteins were respectively inspected by MTT, flow cytometry, and Western blot. In addition, expression of HOST2 was investigated by real-time PCR. Kaplan-Meier manner with the log-rank investigation was achieved to calculate overall survival.Results: SH remarkably repressed cell viability, evoked apoptosis and induced cell cycle arrest in G0/G1. Moreover, SH statistically decreased HOST2 expression in Caov3 and SKOV3 cells. Overexpression of HOST2 significantly reversed the effects of SH on Caov3 cell viability, cell cycle and apoptosis. Clinical findings confirmed that HOST2 was profoundly higher expressed in ovarian cancer tissues and cells, and HOST2 predicated unfavourable prognosis of ovarian cancer individuals.Conclusion: Our findings recommended that SH exerted the antitumor effect in ovarian cancer cells by hindering expression of HOST2. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
  Figure 5. XPS analysis of the CNFs, A: survey scans of the CNFs, the CNFs after U(VI) and Eu(III) adsorption (CNFs_U(a), and CNFs_Eu(a)) and U(VI) and Eu(III) desorption (CNFs_U(d) and CNFs_Eu(d))... The spectra for Eu(III) after adsorption desorption are surprisingly similar in the baseline stretches between the discrete orbital peaks - that is, the **noise** is identical, down to individual pixels. The same is true for the two U(VI) spectra. Emphasized at right. ![file] , 
  Figure 1. Characterization of the CNFs, ... B: TEM; ... D: C 1s of XPS . ![file]  Fig. 1. Characterization of MIO B composites, A: TEM image; B: O 1s XPS spectra . From  Adsorption of U(VI) on magnetic iron oxide Paecilomyces catenlannulatus composites [(Li et al 2018)] . ![file] Could the authors comment on the similarity of the images? , 
 It is obvious that the images in JML (2018) are copied from EST (2016). , 
 At left:  Fig. 6. The XANES (A) ... spectra of references and U-loaded P. catenlannulatus incubation time = 7 days, pH 4.5, CU(VI) = 20 mg L. From  Detoxification of U(VI) by Paecilomyces catenlannulatus investigated by batch, XANES and EXAFS techniques [(Li et al 2018)] . At right:  Figure 6. A: The XANES spectra of reference and uranium adsorption samples . ![file] Here resized and superimposed to emphasize the similarity of the spectra. ![file] I am especially impressed by the similar behaviour of Uranium-loaded *P. catenlannulatus* fungus to U-loaded carbon nanofibres at pH=7. , 
 #3 The authors of [the JML paper] are collaborators with the first author of the present EST paper - they shared co-authorship of [another 2018 publication] - so the direction of the flow of images and results is not really so obvious. , 
 #1 It is also helpful to compare Fig 7A of this paper *[right]* with Fig 5A *[left]* of  Direct Synthesis of Bacteria-Derived Carbonaceous Nanofibers as a Highly Efficient Material for Radionuclides Elimination [(Sun et al 2016)] . The spectra differ in the absorbed-element-specific spikes, and in the height of the step at 960 eV, but the baseline noise is replicated very well. ![file] , 
 Corrected September 16, 2019: https: pubs.acs.org doi 10.1021 acs.est.9b04434  It has come to our attention that Figure 1E on page 4461, Figure 5 on page 4464 and Figure S6 in the Supporting Information were not correct. The corrected Figures 1E, 5 and S6 are a little different from the originals due to the previous errors in the experimental operations and date processing. The N2 adsorptionu2013desorption of the CNFs in Figure 1E and u03ba3 weighting (u03c7(u03ba)u03ba2 not u03c7(u03ba)u03ba3) in Figure S6 were originally provided by mistake after carefully checking. The specific surface area of CNFs was actually 23.29 m2 g rather than 264 m2 g due to the wrong data selected (the sample is for the graphene oxide but not the CNFs) during importing data and plotting. In the text discussion of Figure 5, the numbers in page 4465 should be changed to agree with the corrected figure, as follows: u201cAs shown by corrected of XPS spectra in Figure 5, U 4f spectra displayed two sub-peaks at u223c382 eV (U 4f7 2) and 393 eV (U 4f5 2), and U 4f7 2 peak can be deconvoluted by U(IV) (381.78 eV) and U(VI) species (382.38 eV), indicating that U(VI) was partly reduced to U(IV) by CNFs. As shown in Figure 5C, Eu 3d peak was also assigned to two doublet peaks at u223c1134.6 eV (Eu 3d5 2) and 1165.2 eV (Eu 3d3 2)u201d. These corrections do not affect any of the discussion or conclusion of the paper. The complete corrected Supporting Information is available. Figure 1E. N2 adsorptionu2013desorption of the CNFs. Figure 5. XPS analysis of the CNFs, A: survey scans; B: high resolution U 4f of CNFs_U(a); C: high resolution Eu 3d of CNFs_Eu(a). , 
  *The specific surface area of CNFs was actually 23.29 m2 g rather than 264 m2 g due to the wrong data selected* but... *these corrections do not affect any of the discussion or conclusion of the paper.* So, if the specific surface area of the nanofibers is so unimportant for the discussion, why mention it in the paper? Could be 0.01 m2 g, or 50000 m2 g, the findings would be similar. My point is that conlcusions are *obviously* modified, by an order of magnitude. ,