MicroRNA-9 enhances migration and invasion through KLF17 in hepatocellular carcinoma
Authors: Robert Chunhua Zhao
Zhao Sun
Chunmei Bai
Qin Han
Na Zhou
Shan Lu
Shihua Wang
Journal: Molecular Oncology (2013)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: CHIP; E-ca; E-cadherin; EMT; FBS
Affiliations: Department of Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, People's Republic of China.

Abstract:  Metastasis is one of the hallmarks of cancer malignancy that usually causes more detrimental effects than a primary tumor. Many microRNAs were reported to be involved in the process of tumor metastasis. Hep11 and Hep12 cells were derived from primary and recurrence (intrahepatic metastatic) sites of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), respectively. Hep12 exhibited a higher invasive and migratory potential than Hep11. There was also a significantly higher expression of miR-9 in Hep12 cells than in Hep11 cells. Further studies in HCC cell lines demonstrated that miR-9 could promote tumor cell migration and invasion. In addition, miR-9 downregulated KLF17 protein expression by targeting the 3'UTR region of the KLF17 gene directly. As a transcription factor, KLF17 directly acted on the promoters of EMT-related genes (ZO-1, Vimentin and Fibronectin (FN)) in HCC cell lines. Therefore, we conclude that miR-9 may possibly promote HCC migration and invasion through regulation of KLF17. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 microRNA profiling data are the basis of this project. However, I must convey some major concerns about the methods and results. 1) The microarray underlying the paper is said to have been  the TaqManu00ae Array Human MicroRNA Cards V3.0 (Applied Biosystems) . However, numerous of the microRNAs reported to be differentially expressed according to the supplementary file 1 are not on this array. Just to give examples from about 12 that I checked, miR-1224-5p, 1229, 1246, 1268, 1281, 1908, 1977, 1978, and 1979 are reported in this paper but are not contained on the array. Since the indicated array could not have given the reported results, could the authors please indicate which array was actually used? 2) The raw and normalised data do not seem to have been deposited with a public database, as is customary for rigorous studies. Could the authors please deposit these files with GEO? This is especially important in light of the concerns above. 3) The exact details of array data analysis are not provided and would be useful in assessing the results. Thresholds, amplification scores, etc. Where details are provided, they are contradictory. For example, in the microarray methods, the PCR array was  repeated at least twice but later is said to have been done  in triplicate although variance is not indicated in the results. The readouts in the reported results cannot be interpreted without these details. qPCR is said to have been done with a Qiagen kit, but in the same methods section, with a Takara kit. Which was it? It would be helpful to know the exact methods and all primers (RT, f, r) in light of these discrepancies. I would also note that at least one publication from this group relied on the data reported here as the basis for an entire microRNA-target study [Sun et al, 2013] , even though the  miRNA in question was not on the reported array (miR-1246) and is likely not a true miRNA (snRNA U2 fragment). ,