Long noncoding RNA MEG3 deteriorates inflammatory damage by downregulating microRNA‐101a
Authors: Jinlong Wang
Jingna Si
Junxia Han
Shouyi Tang
Yingying Liu
Hui Jiao
Journal: Journal of cellular biochemistry (2020)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: MEG3; TNF-α; inflammatory damage; miR-101a; valvulopathy.
Affiliations: Department of Cardiology, Heze Municipal Hospital, Heze, Shandong, China., Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Heze Municipal Hospital, Heze, Shandong, China.

Abstract:  Valvulopathy is a familiar heart disease, which fearfully harms the health of the body. We studied the effects and mechanism of long noncoding RNA maternally expressed gene 3 (lncMEG3) on MVICs cell in inflammatory damage. Cell Counting Kit-8 and flow cytometry were respectively used to detect the effect of tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), MEG3 and microRNA (miR)-101a on cell viability and apoptosis. Moreover, MEG3 and miR-101a expression were changed by cell transfection and investigated by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Furthermore, Western blot was used to investigate the levels of Bax, pro-caspase-3, cleaved-caspase-3, pro-caspase-9, cleaved-caspase-9, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6 and related-proteins of cell pathways. Otherwise, the levels of IL-1β and IL-6 were also investigated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) was examined by ROS assay. We found TNF-α caused inflammatory damage and upregulated MEG3. MEG3 was overexpressed and silenced in cells. Besides, MEG3 deteriorated inflammatory damage. Furthermore, MEG3 negatively regulated miR-101a and miR-101a mimic could reverse the effect of pc-MEG3. Besides, MEG3 enhanced the JNK and NF-κB pathways by downregulating miR-101a. In conclusion, MEG3 deteriorated cell inflammatory damage by downregulating miR-101a via JNK and NF-κB pathways. 

Retracted: Yes

PubPeer comments:
 The Western blots in this paper have an interesting appearance that appears to be shared with blots in other papers from other research groups, such as these papers published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry: * Ying Liu et al. 2019, DOI: 10.1002 jcb.29568 * Long Liu et al. 2020, DOI: 10.1002 jcb.29642 * Lin Zhang et al. 2019, DOI: 10.1002 jcb.28729 * Yugeng Li et al. 2019, DOI: 10.1002 jcb.29146 * Xiaoliang Yang et al. 2019, DOI: 10.1002 jcb.28829 * Ning Han et al. 2019, DOI: 10.1002 jcb.29638 All these papers share particular characteristics, such as similar title structure, similar graph design, and the appearance of the Western blots. Western blot panels within the same figure, and across figures and papers, appear to share the same background or parts of the background. In addition, the bands are regularly spaced, all have similar rounded edges, without the usual smudges and specks. The bands also sometimes have a particular fish-like shape that resembles jumping sardines. For example, here is Figure 4E, with its contrast enhanced to bring out details. Although the bands are differently shaped, the background of these panels is more similar than expected. Colored panels draw attention to background areas that look unexpectedly similar. Could the authors provide the original, uncropped blots, please? ![file] , 
 Figure 7B is shown here as another example of panels that have unexpectedly similar background noise. Rounded boxes of the same color help to draw the eye to particular regions that can be compared. ![file] , 
 The flow cytometry panels in Figure 1, 4, and 6 of this paper look very unusual as well. They show an isolated hairball of events in Q3 with none of the expected  smear into other quadrants. In addition, the top quadrants all show some very regularly spaced dots, while the Q4 quadrants all show a similar, crab-like group of events. Could the authors please comment? ![file] , 
 #3 I think that s the Death Star in each Q3, firing out pulses of planet-busting energy in Q4, while regularly-spaced flotillas of Tie Fighters swoop in through Q1 and Q2. Here comparing the 3rd and 6th FACS plots from Fig 4D: ![file] , 
 #1 It seems that the same leaping sardines have been shown in Figs 4E and 4F. ![file] , 
 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 [4 June 2021] . --------------------------------------- The above article, published online on 21 October 2019 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. ,