Silencing of long noncoding RNA SBF2-AS1 inhibits proliferation, migration and invasion and contributes to apoptosis in osteosarcoma cells by upregulating microRNA-30a to suppress FOXA1 expression
Authors: Jun Luo
Chen Li
Jiang-Hua Dai
Si-Jian Lin
Wen-Zhou Huang
Jun Deng
Journal: Cell Cycle (2019)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: Forkhead box A1; LncRNA SBF2-AS1; MicroRNA-30a; apoptosis; invasion
Affiliations: Rehabilitation department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University , Nanchang , Jiangxi , PR. China.

Abstract:  Objectives: Long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) SBF2-AS1 was found to be related to some tumors. Nevertheless, the role of SBF2-AS1 in osteosarcoma (OS) is still needed to be elaborated. This study is conducted to examine the expression of lncRNA SBF2-AS1 in OS with the involvement of microRNA-30a (miR-30a) and FOXA1. Methods: OS tissues and its corresponding adjacent normal tissues were obtained for the detection of SBF2-AS1 expression and its relations with clinical phenotypes. OS cells with most significant expression of SBF2-AS1 were selected for subsequent experiments. Moreover, a series of experiments were performed to detect proliferation, invasion, migration, colony formation, cell cycle distribution and apoptosis of OS cells. Furthermore, the binding site between SBF2-AS1 and miR-30a as well as between miR-30a and FOXA1 was verified. Results: SBF2-AS1 was overexpressed in tissues and cells of OS. Additionally, silencing of SBF2-AS1 and miR-30a overexpression inhibited the proliferation, migration and invasion of OS cells and promoted their apoptosis. Moreover, lncRNA SBF2-AS1 regulated miR-30a by serving as a ceRNA, thus promoting FOXA1 expression. Furthermore, interfered SBF2-AS1 or upregulated miR-30a restrained the growth of OS. Conclusion: Our study confirms that silencing of SBF2-AS1 represses proliferation, migration and invasion of OS cells and promotes their apoptosis by binding to miR-30a and inhibiting FOXA1 expression. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 This article is a falsification. Figure 2f: Some patterns in the micrograph are repeated. They are not exactly identical, but this is suspicious. Figure 4f: Areas from one micrograph have been assembled and presented as a new micrograph. Figure 4d: Same problem as for Figure 4f. In addition, a large area of a micrograph in FIgure 4d (far right) is also seen in Figure 2d (far right). Figure 4g: Same problem as for Figure 4d and f. ![file] ![file] , 
 Since no reply from the authors, papermill and publisher after 10 months, I checked this paper once more. Several of the presented tumors are apparently modified and reused in the same Figure 6a. In addition, all the primers sequences (Forward) are incorrect. Interestingly, a previous paper published in Cell Cycle (Han, S et al., 2019) are very similar and they use two of the same incorrect primer sequences (U6 and GAPDH) as presented here (Table 1). Please see previous PubPeer post: https: pubpeer.com publications E4F816110ACCEF8569450E4DA42A53#1 The two papers share no common authors or affiliation and are therefore most probably fabricated by one of the many papermills in China. ![file] ![file] , 
 #1 Fig 4d again. ![file] ,