MicroRNA-625-3p inhibits gastric cancer metastasis through modulating EZH2
Authors: H Huang
Y Zhang
Y Li
H-C Zhou
Journal: European review for medical and pharmacological sciences (2020)
Discipline: PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
Keywords: microRNA-625-3p; gastric cancer; EZH2; metastasis; proliferation
Affiliations: Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Fourth Hospital, Xi'an, China. .

Abstract:  Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether microRNA-625-3p participated in the malignant progression of gastric cancer and inhibited GCa metastasis by regulating EZH2 (Enhancer of zeste homolog 2). Patients and methods: Quantitative Real Time-Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) was performed to examine the expression of microRNA-625-3p in 36 pairs of GCa tissues and para-cancerous tissues. The interplay between microRNA-625-3p level and clinical indexes or prognosis of GCa patients was analyzed. MicroRNA-625-3p mimics and inhibitors, as well as their negative controls, were transfected into GCa cell lines to establish microRNA-625-3p overexpression and down-regulation models in vitro, respectively. QRT-PCR was applied to further verify the transfection efficiency. Cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8), colony formation, and transwell assays were performed to analyze the impact of microRNA-625-3p on the proliferative and invasiveness abilities of GCa AGS and SGC-7901 cells. Finally, the regulatory mechanism of microRNA-625-3p on the downstream gene EZH2 was explored by cell reverse experiment. Results: QRT-PCR results revealed that microRNA-625-3p expression level in GCa tissues was remarkably lower than that of adjacent tissues, and the difference was statistically significant (p&lt;0.05). Compared with patients with high expression of microRNA-625-3p, the incidence of lymph node or distant metastasis was significantly higher in patients with low expression of miR-625-3p, whereas the overall survival rate was lower (p&lt;0.05). Compared with GCa cells in NC inhibitor group, the proliferative ability and invasiveness of cells in microRNA-625-3p inhibitor group were remarkably promoted (p&lt;0.05). However, the opposite results were observed in microRNA-625-3p mimics group. Our findings further demonstrated that the expression of EZH2 increased remarkably in GCa cell lines and tissues (p&lt;0.05). Meanwhile, its expression level was negatively correlated with microRNA-625-3p level. Cell reverse experiment showed that EZH2 could offset the influence of microRNA-625-3p on the proliferation and metastasis GCa cells, thereby affecting the malignant progression of GCa. Conclusions: MicroRNA-625-3p was remarkably correlated with lymph node or distant metastasis and poor prognosis of GCa patients. In addition, microRNA-625-3p might inhibit the malignant progression of GCa via modulating EZH2. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
  In this study, 36 pairs of invasive GCa tumor tissues and corresponding adjacent tissues were collected from surgically treated GCa patients. Collected tissues were, stored at u201380u00b0C for use. The collection of clinical specimens was approved by the Ethics Monitoring Committee. The authors are spread across three hospitals: The Fourth Hospital, Xiu2019an; Taikang Xianlin Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing; Xijing Hospital, Xiu2019an. The lack of detail about where the purported patients were recruited, and the location of the source of ethics approval, does not foster confidence in the existence of those patients. , 
 Figure 4C: * Orange boxes: A panel in Figure 4C appears to overlap with a panel in Figure 2D from another paper by different authors, where it represents a very different experiment. That paper is: L Yang et al., ERMPS (2020), DOI: 10.26355 eurrev_202002_2015 - https: pubpeer.com publications B324F0C5CC90125D4A9AA9F883A5DC Can the authors please explain how two very different research groups can publish a photo of the same specimen? ![file] , 
 Figure 2D. * Cyan boxes: A panel in this figure appears to overlap with a panel in Figure 2C of WJ Wang et al., ERMPS (2020), DOI: 10.26355 eurrev_202001_20056 - https: pubpeer.com publications A93964B21F3EE8BAC2E56B992DA8F9, where it represents a very different experiment. Can the authors please explain how two very different research groups can publish a photo of the same specimen? ![file] ,