MicroRNA-155 suppresses activation-induced cytidine deaminase-mediated Myc-Igh translocation
Authors: Mila Jankovic
Kevin M McBride
Bernardo Reina San-Martin
Tanja A Schwickert
To-Ha Thai
Davide F Robbiani
Anna Gazumyan
Klaus Rajewsky
Gordon Heidkamp
Michel C Nussenzweig
Yair Dorsett
Thomas Eisenreich
Michela Di Virgilio
Journal: Immunity (2008)
Discipline: IMMUNOLOGY
Keywords: MicroRNAs; miR-155; mRNA interaction; AID; translocations
Affiliations: Laboratory of Molecular Immunology, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA.

Abstract:  MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small noncoding RNAs that regulate vast networks of genes that share miRNA target sequences. To examine the physiologic effects of an individual miRNA-mRNA interaction in vivo, we generated mice that carry a mutation in the putative microRNA-155 (miR-155) binding site in the 3'-untranslated region of activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID), designated Aicda(155) mice. AID is required for immunoglobulin gene diversification in B lymphocytes, but it also promotes chromosomal translocations. Aicda(155) caused an increase in steady-state Aicda mRNA and protein amounts by increasing the half-life of the mRNA, resulting in a high degree of Myc-Igh translocations. A similar but more pronounced translocation phenotype was also found in miR-155-deficient mice. Our experiments indicate that miR-155 can act as a tumor suppressor by reducing potentially oncogenic translocations generated by AID. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 #1 Um, no? They re expected to be pretty similar. There are subtle differences, just like the other pairs of panels in this same figure. You need to understand the methodology before making comments like this. , 
 Figure 4D. Much more similar than expected. https: imgur.com qzgJZoR.jpg , 
 #2  There are subtle differences, just like the other pairs of panels in this same figure. That s not true. The panels on the left show differences, the panels on the right much less so. On the left the spots in the background are different, on the right not different. , 
 The images are not the same. They are suppose to be very similar, that s the entire point. I can understand that a quick glance might lead to that type of thought but 2 quick techniques can show that they aren t duplicates. If you got to the site, download the image. Techniques A: zoom in on an area of the suspected duplicates, link the images and turn up and down the contrast and brightness (the editor at JEM mentioned to me this is a quick way if you to see if they are duplicates). If the images are the same they should maintain their digital similarity. If they aren t differences will emerge. See image A here, I did that and they are different. They aren t the same. Technique B: Zoom in and check for subtle differences. See image B, there are differences. While I admire people checking these things, careful analysis is really needed. ![file] ![file] , 
 Not the same; expected to be similar; but the degree of similarity is unexpected. Also, the resolution of the two images differ. ![file] , 
 #4  the editor at JEM mentioned to me this is a quick way if you to see if they are duplicates Could he put that in writing?  zoom in on an area of the suspected duplicates If the resolution is low this will produce differences. ,