RECK inhibits cervical cancer cell migration and invasion by promoting p53 signaling pathway
Authors: Yang Liu
Yuan Liu
Guilin Li
Lei Li
Hongjuan Song
Peng Geng
Yanling Yang
Journal: Journal of Cellular Biochemistry (2018)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: RECK; cervical cancer; invasion; migration; p53.
Affiliations: Department of GynaecologyXuzhou Maternal &amp; Child Health Care HospitalXuzhouJiangsuChina

Abstract:  The present study was conducted to investigate the effects of RECK on cervical cancer cell migration and invasion to help understand relevant molecular mechanisms. QRT-PCR and western blot were respectively utilized to examine the transcriptional and translational levels of RECK in cervical cancer cell lines (HELA and C33A) and normal cell line (H8). After transfection with RECK overexpressing vectors, the expression of RECK mRNA, RECK and p53 signaling pathway-related proteins (p21, p53, bcl-2, and Bax) in cervical cancer cells were respectively examined using qRT-PCR and western blot. Cervical cancer cell migration after transfection was detected by wound healing assay and transwell assay. RECK expression was much lower in cervical cancer cell lines compared with normal cell line. Results of wound-healing assay results indicated that RECK could inhibit cervical cancer cell migration, and transwell assay results demonstrated that cell invasion was suppressed by RECK overexpression. Furthermore, western blot indicated that the overexpression of RECK could promote the activation of p53 signaling pathway by influencing related protein expression; whereas its inhibition by PFT-α could antagonize the effect of RECK on migrative and invasive abilities of cervical cancer cells. RECK could inhibit the migration and invasion of cervical cancer cells by activating p53 signaling pathway. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
null, 
 Via https: www.ilfattoquotidiano.it in-edicola articoli 2019 11 28 ricerche-mediche-aggiustate-pero-la-scienza-tace 5583974 (and Google translate) Fixed medical research, but science is silent by Gianni Barbacetto | NOVEMBER 28, 2019 u201cFor justice everything is fine. But is this okay for the scientific community ? Is it possible to falsify the images of the experiments, or avoid doing the control experiment, without anyone having anything to say? These are the questions that remain, at the end of a long judicial investigation by the Milan Public Prosecutor s Office on some articles of the most important Italian scientists engaged in cancer research. Professor Alberto Mantovani of Humanitas, Pier Giuseppe Pelicci of Ieo, Pier Paolo Di Fiore of Ifom, Marco Pierotti, with Maria Angela Greco, Elena Tamburini and Silvana Pilotti of the Cancer Institute, were investigated by prosecutors Francesco Cajani and Paolo Filippini for having manipulated the images of some of their studies published in international scientific journals. They are research luminaries who maneuver millions of euros from public funds, private donations, 5 per thousand collections . They received, only in the period analyzed by the Public Prosecutor (2005-2012), very high figures: 9.37 million Di Fiore; 3.06 Mantovani; 1.48 Pelicci; 3.60 Pierotti, for a total of 17 million paid by the CNR , the Ministry of Health and the University. And they got caught  fixing their research records. Now the judge of the preliminary investigation Sofia Fioretta has closed the investigation started in 2014, dismissing the accusations and arguing - with bold arguments - that the professors  did not carry out any falsification activities  . The two prosecutors had already requested the filing, arguing that the manipulations are established, but that the crime of  scientific fraud does not exist in Italy (as there is instead that of insurance fraud and sports fraud), therefore it is not possible pursue the behaviors of the seven excellent oncologists. The investigating judge was more creative : he recognized  a harmless and innocent fake , realized  because there was no time or money to perform the replication, or because competitors were coming first (what stupid scientists who do everything right instead ). Therefore,  insignificant errors were made . Replicas of the experiments were not carried out, but this  did not affect the content of the research and  did not undermine the scientific validity of the published thesis . In short: the luminaries were wrong, but in modest quantity . Yet the examinations of the experts of the Public Prosecutor s Office have ascertained the manipulations: three in the works of Pelicci-Ieo, four in those of the group of Pierotti-Istituto dei tumori (i.e. two by Pilotti and one by Greco and Tamburini), one in the works by Di Fiore-Ifom and one by Mantovani-Humanitas. But nothing wrong with that, that s okay, the investigating judge Fioretta reassures us. Closed the judicial game, at this point we ask some questions to the scientific community: 1. Are there, in scientific practice,  harmless and innocent false manipulations , but  of little significance ? 2. Is it normal that seven luminaries of oncology research publish images in international scientific journals that are manipulated in 21 out of 27 cases analyzed? 3. Is it compatible with the scientific method that, having performed the first experiment, one tarot the replica,  because there was no time or money to perform it,  or because competitors were arriving first ? 4. Since it is impossible, on the judicial level, to establish the direct connection between research carried out and funds obtained, is it still normal, on the scientific and ethical level, to obtain money, public and private, with the prestige gained (also) with fake research? 5. Is the scientific community sure that squaring up (corporately) and rejoicing in the  false innocents is the best way to defend science and the scientific method, now threatened by charlatans, scoundrels and no-vaxes?u201d ,