Lnc00908 promotes the development of ovarian cancer by regulating microRNA-495-5p
Authors: Q Yang
H-J Gao
J-N Jiang
Q-Y Hong
J-F Lan
B-L Lai
Journal: European review for medical and pharmacological sciences (2019)
Discipline: PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
Keywords: lnc00908; microRNA-495-5p; ovarian cancer; proliferation; migration
Affiliations: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. .

Abstract:  Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether lnc00908 could affect the proliferative and migratory behaviors of ovarian cancer (OC) cells by regulating microRNA-495-5p, thus participating in the development of OC. Patients and methods: Quantitative Real Time-Polymerase Chain Reaction (QRT-PCR) was used to detect the expression levels of lnc00908 and microRNA-495-5p in OC tissues and normal ovarian tissues, as well as OC cell lines. The regulatory effects of lnc00908 and microRNA-495-5p on the proliferative and migration abilities of OC cells were detected by cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8) and transwell assay, respectively. The binding relationship between microRNA-495-5p and ANXA3, as well as miR-495-5p and lnc00908, was examined by luciferase reporter gene assay. Gain-of-function experiments were conducted to verify whether lnc00908 could affect the proliferative and migratory behaviors of OC cells by regulating microRNA-495-5p. Results: Lnc00908 was highly expressed in OC tissues, and its expression was positively correlated with tumor stage. Overexpression of lnc00908 markedly promoted the proliferative and migratory abilities of SKOV3 and OVCAR cells. Luciferase reporter gene assay showed that lnc00908 could bind to microRNA-495-5p. However, microRNA-495-5p was significantly downregulated in OC tissues. Overexpression of microRNA-495-5p reversed the enhanced abilities of proliferation and migration in SKOV3 and OVCAR3 cells by lnc00908 overexpression. ANXA3 was a target gene of microRNA-495-5p. Moreover, overexpression of ANXA3 attenuated the inhibitory effect of miR-495-5p on the proliferative and migratory behaviors of SKOV3 and OVCAR3 cells. Conclusions: We found that the high expression of lnc00908 can promote the proliferation and migration abilities of OC cells through sponging microRNA-495-5p to regulate ANXA3 expression. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 During a recent JC about honeybee navigation, I found several issues related to this and another paper describing the same results. For each overlay shown, I scaled the axes of the graphs to be the same by expanding reducing the size of the image; otherwise, the graphs are unmanipulated. ### The papers in question are the following: [Paper 1] : Srinivasan, Zhang and Bidwell (1997). Visually Mediated Odometry in Honeybees. The Journal of Experimental Biology 200, 2513-2522. [Paper 2] : Srinivasan, Zhang, Lehrer, Collett (1996). Honeybee Navigation en route to the Goal: Visual Flight Control and Odometry. The Journal of Experimental Biology 199: 237-244 ### Within paper 1, I found the following inconsistencies: Throughout paper 1, the control condition is not repeated, and the same data is reused throughout the entire paper (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3c, Fig. 5). The figure legends do not always mention that the control data is the same, but the same number of replicates (n=121) is reported. However, the graph for Unit 9 in Fig. 7 is also identical to the other controls, even though here the authors report n=71 and a different experimental condition (tunnel length=7.6m instead of 3.2m). #### Overlay of Paper 1 Fig. 7 and Fig. 2A: ![file] Next, in Fig. 3A, the authors report n=19 for the  still air condition. The reported tunnel width for this experiment is 22 cm (the authors refer to the  training tunnel (see Fig. 1A) in the figure legend) with n=19. This graph is identical to the  14 cm tunnel data in Fig. 3B, with a reported tunnel width of 14 cm and n=35. #### Overlay of Paper 1 Fig.3A and B: ![file] ### Comparing paper 1 and 2, I found the following inconsistencies: Fig. 3 of paper 1 and Fig. 8 of paper 2 report the same experiment. The data reported are identical. However, in paper 1 the tunnel widths and corresponding replicate numbers are 7 cm, n=42; 14 cm, n=35; 22cm, n=56. In paper 2, the reported widths and number of replicates for the same data are: 11 cm; n=42; 14 cm, n=?; 22cm, n=88. #### Overlay of Paper 1 Fig. 3 and Paper 2 Fig. 8: ![file] Lastly, I found another small issue with these two papers: Overall, paper 2 reports the same results as paper 1. In paper 1, the reported length of the tunnel used for the experiments was 3.2m (see Fig.1), while in paper 2 the tunnel length is 3.35m (see Fig.6). ,