<p>microRNA-26a Directly Targeting MMP14 and MMP16 Inhibits the Cancer Cell Proliferation, Migration and Invasion in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma</p>
Authors: Xing-Long Li
Wang Zheng
Rui Liu
De-Lai Zhao
Zong-Yu Li
Journal: Cancer Management and Research (2020)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: MMP14; MMP16; cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma; miR-26a; tumorigenesis.
Affiliations: Department of Burns, The Fifth Hospital of Harbin, Harbin 150040, People's Republic of China., Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Fifth Hospital of Harbin, Harbin 150040, People's Republic of China., Department of Burns, Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital, Harbin 150036, People's Republic of China.

Abstract:  Purpose: To investigate the specific effect and underlying mechanism of microRNA-26a-5p (miR-26a) in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC). Methods: miR-26a and MMP14/16 mRNA expression were detected by qRT-PCR analysis. Functional experiments were used to detect the role of miR-26a on CSCC progression. Western blot was used for protein detection. Luciferase assay was used to detect miR-26a directly targeting MMP14 and MMP16. Xenograft nude mice model was used to determine the effect of miR-26a on tumorigenesis. Results: miR-26a was decreased in CSCC tissues and cells. Forced miR-26a suppressed the progression of SCL-1 and A431 cells. Furthermore, miR-26a directly targeted MMP14 and MMP16 to inhibit their expression. Forced expression of MMP14 and MMP16 removed the miR-26a's inhibitory effect on CSCC development. The in vivo tumor growth assay showed that miR-26a suppressed CSCC tumorigenesis by targeting MMP14 and MMP16. Conclusion: Our study suggested miR-26a inhibits cancer cell proliferation, migration and invasion in CSCC by targeting MMP14 and MMP16. 

Retracted: Yes

PubPeer comments:
 Fig 2C.  The apoptosis of cells was calculated by flow cytometry . ![file] Each panel contains a halo of regularly-spaced dots, surrounding a central clump with a curious appearance, woven or crocheted in texture (also visible in [Zhao et al 2020] and [Qu et al 2020] ). Perhaps these are instrumentation artefacts of some kind. Is it possible for the authors to upload the raw data files to a data repository somewhere? , 
 Fig 6B.  Tumor weight was determined in the isolated tumors from the nude mice ![file] *[left]* Fig 5b from [Mu et al (2020)] . *[right]* Fig 6b from [Zhao, Yin Zhang (2020)] .  The tumor weights of mice with different treatments, including PBS (control), Dox (2 mg kg), Dox-GO (containing 2 mg kg of Dox), and ANG-Dox-GO (containing 2 mg kg of Dox), respectively, on 20 days . ![] UPDATE: Another sighting! Fig 6A of [Tian et al (2020)] . ![] Surprising similarities. , 
 Retracted [15 September 2021] . ---------------------- The Editor and Publisher of Cancer Management and Research wish to retract the published article. Concerns were raised over the alleged image duplication if Figure 6B with similar images from unrelated articles, specifically: - Figure 6B, all panels, appear to have been duplicated with similar images in Figure 5B from Mu et al and Figure 6B from Zhao et al, 2020 . The authors did not respond to our queries and the Editor determined the findings of the study were no longer valid and 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. ,