Circular RNA circ-FoxO3 Inhibits Myoblast Cells Differentiation
Authors: Huixiang Li
Wei Ni
Zhijin Liu
Li Liu
Xiaoyue Li
Yueren Xu
Shengwei Hu
Rui Yao
Mengdan Zhang
Renzhe Quan
Cunyuan Li
Journal: Cells (2019)
Discipline: BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Keywords: C2C12 myoblast cells; cell differentiation; cell proliferation; circ-FoxO3; miRNA sponge.
Affiliations: College of Life Sciences, Shihezi University, Xinjiang 832003, China. ., College of Animal Science and Technology, Shihezi University, Xinjiang 832003, China. .

Abstract:  CircRNA is a type of closed circular non-coding RNA formed by reverse splicing and plays an important role in regulating the growth and development of plants and animals. To investigate the function of circ-FoxO3 in mouse myoblast cells' (C2C12) differentiation and proliferation, we used RT-qPCR to detect the expression level of circ-FoxO3 in mouse myoblast cells at different densities and different differentiation stages, and the specific interference fragment was used to inhibit the expression level of circ-FoxO3 in myoblast cells to observe its effect on myoblast cells proliferation and differentiation. We found that the expression level of circ-FoxO3 in myoblast cells increased with the prolongation of myoblast cells differentiation time, and its expression level decreased with the proliferation of myoblast cells. At the same time, we found that the differentiation ability of the cells was significantly increased (p &lt; 0.05), but the cell proliferation was unchanged (p &gt; 0.05) after inhibiting the expression of circ-FoxO3 in myoblast cells. Combining the results of bioinformatics analysis and the dual luciferase reporter experiment, we found that circ-FoxO3 is a sponge of miR-138-5p, which regulates muscle differentiation. Our study shows that circ-FoxO3 can inhibit the differentiation of C2C12 myoblast cells and lay a scientific foundation for further study of skeletal muscle development at circRNA levels. 

Retracted: Yes

PubPeer comments:
 Two images in Fig. 2 appear to be identical. ![file] , 
 #1 Dear Mallotus Korthalsii, Thank you very much for your comments. After carefully checked experimental records, we speculate that the error may originate from preparation process of Figure 2. The error should be from double copy of image named as 100% and error deletion of image named as GM, when these images were integrated into an entire Figure 2. Beause both image named as 100% and image named as GM had similar cell morphology and identical densities, it was difficult to identify the error with naked eye. We have contacted the journal to correct this error. Thank you again for your comments. , 
 #1 Dear Mallotus Korthalsii, Thank you very much for your comments. After carefully checked experimental records, we speculate that the error may originate from preparation process of Figure 2. The error should be from double copy of image named as 100% and error deletion of image named as GM, when these images were integrated into an entire Figure 2. Beause both image named as 100% and image named as GM had similar cell morphology and identical densities, the error replacement was difficult to be identified with naked eye. We have contacted the journal to correct this error. Thank you again for your comments. , 
 Dear Mallotus Korthalsii, Thank you very much for your comments. After carefully checked experimental records, we speculate that the error may originate from preparation process of Figure 2. The error should be from double copy of image named as 100% and error deletion of image named as GM, when these images were integrated into an entire Figure 2. Beause both image named as 100% and image named as GM had similar cell morphology and identical densities, the error replacement was difficult to be identified with naked eye. We have contacted the journal to correct this error. Thank you again for your comments. , 
 #2 #3 #4 The authors are clearly satisfied that the error was inadvertent. It is odd, however that three separate authors apparently replied with identical responses. I do not know if this is the case here, but this type of activity has been previously seen on this site in past situations when a paper was later acknowledged to have been produced on behalf of the putative authors by a third party. With respect, how might the authors reassure readers that this isnu2019t what these responses are indicating? , 
 This paper has been retracted. See: https: www.mdpi.com 2073-4409 9 11 2504 ,