Silencing Tspan1 inhibits migration and invasion, and induces the apoptosis of human pancreatic cancer cells
Authors: Jianfeng Zhao
Fang Liu
Ming Dong
Haiyan Piao
Jiaxun Tian
Xiaoxi Li
Xiaobo Zhang
Lan Xu
Xiaofei Yan
Wen Shang
Rui Zhang
Jianping Zhou
Gang Shi
Weiwei Sheng
Journal: Molecular Medicine Reports (2018)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: Pancreatic cancer; Tspan1; therapeutic strategies; cell survival; apoptosis
Affiliations: Department of Laboratory, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shenyang, Liaoning 110042, P.R. China., Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shenyang, Liaoning 110042, P.R. China., Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shenyang, Liaoning 110042, P.R. China., Gastrointestinal Surgery Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110001, P.R. China., General Surgery Department, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110001, P.R. China.

Abstract:  Pancreatic cancer (PCC) is one of the most dangerous types of tumor as it is very difficult to treat and its 5‑year survival rate is &lt;6%. To date, there have been no effective therapeutic strategies to treat PCC, thus, novel effective therapeutic methods are required. Tetraspanin 1 (Tspan1) is a novel member of the tetraspanins superfamily and is highly expressed in a variety of types of cancer, including gastric, hepatocellular and colonic carcinomas. However, the detailed functional role of Tspan1 in pancreatic cancer cells is still unclear and further investigation is required to uncover its therapeutic potential for the treatment of different tumor types. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the expression of Tspan1 in human PCC tissues and cells, and explore the effect of Tspan1 silencing on invasion, migration, cell survival and apoptosis in human PCC to clarify its function. Expression levels of Tspan1 were analyzed in human pancreatic cancer tissues and the cell lines Capan‑2 and SW1990 using immunohistochemistry staining, reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction and western blotting. The effects of downregulation of Tspan1 expression on cell survival, apoptosis, invasion and migration were investigated viaTspan1‑small interfering (si)RNA transfection into human PCC cell lines. The results indicated that Tspan1 expression was increased in human PCC tissues compared with the adjacent normal pancreatic tissues. Tspan1 was highly expressed in the human PCC cell lines Capan‑2 and SW1990 when compared with the normal pancreatic cell line HPC‑Y5. In addition, transfection with siRNA‑targeting Tspan1 significantly reduced cell migration and invasion, and increased the cell apoptosis of Capan‑2 and SW1990. The present findings highlighted the important role of Tspan1 in human PCC cell migration, invasion and apoptosis. Thus, Tspan1 RNA interference may serve as a potential therapeutic strategy to treat human PCC. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Let $$h_1 = {0.9(0.00001), 1.0(0.00002) }$$ $$h_2 = {0.9(0.4), 1.0(0.6) }$$ Then, according to Definition 5, $$s(h_1) s(h_2)$$ and hence $$h_1 h_2$$ Such a ranking method favors **ignorance** in decision making and is impractical. ![file] , 
 #1 Decision-making is a discipline that is oriented towards practical applications. All methods are proposed for practical decision-making problems. As far as probabilistic hesitant fuzzy elements are concerned, in addition to the theoretical definition, it also has practical significance. According to your example, there are 100,000 people participating in the scoring, and we only collected the scores given by 3 people, which is impossible in reality. Even if it happens, we will give up this scoring and re-acquire decision information. Therefore, the example you give is meaningless. Moreover, there is no perfect method in decision-making, and all methods have their own applicable conditions. We have also done some work to improve the decision-making methods based on probabilistic hesitant fuzzy sets. I hope you can continue to focus on this area. After the publication of those results, I believe that your doubts can be better answered. , 
 #2 (1) Your interpretation is not consistent with the explanation of **hesitancy of a single decision maker** repeatedly claimed in the papers by your co-authors. (2) The **ignorance favoring** issue does not disappear when considering $$h_1={0.9(0.1), 1.0(0.2) }$$ $$h_2={0.9(0.4), 1.0(0.6) }$$ , 
 #3 The same is true for the situation of single decision makers. If an expert gives probabilistic hesitation fuzzy elements like {0.9 (0.1), 1 (0.2)} when scoring. This shows that he is very unsure of the score he gives, which means that the score is unreliable. In the actual decision-making process, we will never adopt such a score. Therefore, whether from the perspective of one single decision maker or multiple decision makers, the examples you give are meaningless. In practical decision-making problems, we often encounter decision-making information with incomplete probability or weight information. In the practical decision-making processes, we will definitely choose whether to use this kind of information according to the specific situations. So, such unreliable information will not affect our decision-making results. Finally, for your doubts, I would like to make two suggestions: (1) I hope you can start from the perspective of practical application and think about how to better solve practical problems; (2) if you are still confused about the way of dealing with incomplete probability or weight information, please learn more about the content of evidence reasoning. , 
 #4 Dear Dr. Shen Zhang, It seems that most, if not all, practical case studies reported in hundreds of papers authored by your co-author Prof. Zeshui Xu and his co-authors are **hypothetical**. Can you kindly identify one that is really practical so that the readers, including me, may learn to **think about how to better solve practical problems** and **learn more about the content of evidence reasoning**? ,