<p>Long noncoding RNA SNHG16 silencing inhibits the aggressiveness of gastric cancer via upregulation of microRNA-628-3p and consequent decrease of NRP1</p>
Authors: Weifeng Pang
Yue Wang
Zhiqiang Li
Mingcui Zhai
Journal: Cancer Management and Research (2019)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: gastric cancer; long noncoding RNA; microRNA-628-3p; neuropilin 1; small nucleolar RNA host gene 16.
Affiliations: Department of Internal Oncology, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, People's Republic of China., Department of Burn, Heilongjiang Province Hospital, Harbin, People's Republic of China., Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Wright State University, Fairborn, OH, USA., Department of General Surgery, Suihua First Hospital in Heilongjiang Province, Suihua, People's Republic of China.

Abstract:  Background: MicroRNA-628-3p (miR-628) has been reported to play important roles in the progression of multiple human cancer types. Nonetheless, whether the expression profile of miR-628 is altered in gastric cancer remains unclear and whether its aberrant expression plays a crucial part in the aggressiveness of gastric cancer is yet to be determined. Therefore, in this study, we systematically investigated the involvement of miR-628 in gastric cancer progression. Materials and methods: MiR-628 expression in gastric cancer tissues and cell lines were determined via reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). A CCK-8 assay, flow-cytometric analysis, Transwell assays, and a xenograft model experiment were performed to evaluate the influence of miR-628 overexpression on gastric cancer cells. Notably, the mechanisms underlying the tumor-suppressive activity of miR-628 in gastric cancer cells were explored by bioinformatics analysis, a luciferase reporter assay, RT-qPCR, and Western blotting. Results: MiR-628 expression was low in gastric cancer tissue samples and cell lines. The low expression of miR-628 was closely associated with the lymph node metastasis, invasive depth and TNM stage among patients with gastric cancer. Further clinical analysis indicated that patients with gastric cancer underexpressing miR-628 had a worse prognosis than did the patients with high miR-628 expression in the tumor. Overexpressed miR-628 restrained proliferation, migration, and invasion; induced apoptosis; and impaired tumor growth of gastric cancer cells. In addition, neuropilin 1 (NRP1) mRNA was validated as the direct target of miR-628 in gastric cancer. Long noncoding RNA small nucleolar RNA host gene 16 (SNHG16) was demonstrated to sponge miR-628 in gastric cancer. Moreover, miR-628 knockdown abrogated the influence of SNHG16 silencing on gastric cancer cells. Conclusion: Our findings elucidate how the SNHG16-miR-628-NRP1 pathway serves as a regulatory network playing crucial roles in gastric cancer progression, suggesting that this pathway may be a novel target of anticancer therapy. 

Retracted: Yes

PubPeer comments:
 Figs 2C, 4C, 6B.  Flow-cytometric analysis was carried out to determine the influence of agomir-628 transfection on the apoptosis of BGC-823 and SGC-7901 cells ;  The ... apoptosis of BGC-823 and SGC-7901 cells with restored NRP1 expression were quantified by ... and flow-cytometric analysis ;  ... flow-cytometric analysis were carried out to evaluate ... apoptosis of BGC-823 and SGC-7901 cells after si-SNHG16 or si-NC transfection . ![file] Gray box marks a panel that previously appeared in Figs 2D, 6D of [Lv, Wang Ma (2019)] ; Figs 2D,5D,6D of [Zhao, Xu Zhang (2017)] ; and Figs 2D,5D,6D of [Zhao et al (2018)] . ![] Other panels may also have matches in other papers from this oeuvre, collected here: https: docs.google.com spreadsheets d 1X401JM6CcpTSkbKsPsOl20pRKQ-ns1S_J5pTwtBjqPw edit?usp=sharing , 
 *[left]* Fig 9A.  A representative image of the [BGC-823] tumor xenografts obtained from the agomir-628 and agomir-NC groups. *[right]* Fig 7B from [Yan et al (2019)] .  The representative images of the [HCT116] tumor xenografts obtained from the agomir-629 group and the agomir-NC group. ![file] Different cell-lines, different treatments, different authors, same tumors (slightly rotated). , 
 Clockwise from upper left: - **Fig 9A again**.  A representative image of the [BGC-823] tumor xenografts obtained from the agomir-628 and agomir-NC groups. Rotated through 90 deg to facilitate comparison. - Fig 7B from [Yan et al (2019)] again.  The representative images of the [HCT116] tumor xenografts obtained from the agomir-629 group and the agomir-NC group. - Fig 7A from [Yang et al (2019)] .  Representative images of the tumor xenografts 4 weeks after inoculation with U251 cells expressing miR-559 mimics or miR-NC. Rotated through 90 deg. - Fig 8A from [Li, Li Sun (2019)] .  Photographs of tumor xenografts derived from agomir-876u2013 and agomir-NCu2013 transfected MCF-7 cells . ![file] Some pairs of tumors are more similar than one would expect, as if they are the same tumors with slightly different lighting. All four institutions seem to be using **the same ruler**, distinguished by a scrape just to the left of the 1 . Do they pass it around, like the single eye and the single tooth of the Graeae? UPDATE: Another sighting of the ruler! Fig 7A from [Li et al (2019)] ,  Representative images of tumor xenografts derived from HOS cells transfected with the miR-618 mimics or miR-NC . Rotated through 90 deg. ![] , 
 Retracted, [24 September 2021] . ---------------------------------------- Pang W, Zhai M, Wang Y, Li Z. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:7263u20137277. The Editor and Publisher of Cancer Management and Research wish to retract the published article. Concerns were raised over alleged image duplication in Figures 6B and 9A with similar images from unrelated articles, specifically: - Figure 6B, panel SGC-7901 si-NC appears to have been duplicated with a similar image in Figure 2D from Zhao et al, 2017 and Figure 6D from Zhao et al, 2018 . - Figure 9A, panels Agomir-NC (top) and Agomir-628 (top) appear to have been duplicated with similar images in Figure 7B from Yan et al, 2019 . The authors responded to our initial queries but were unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the alleged duplication and could not provide satisfactory original data for their study. The Editor advised for the article to be retracted. Our decision-making was informed by our policy on publishing ethics and integrity and the COPE guidelines on retraction. The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as u201cRetractedu201d. ,