Suppression of long non-coding RNA UCA1 inhibits proliferation and invasion and induces apoptosis in human lung cancer cells
Authors: H-Y Zhang
K-M Ren
J-G Zhao
F-S Zheng
J-Z Zhao
T Jun
Journal: European review for medical and pharmacological sciences (2018)
Discipline: PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
Keywords: Lung cancer; lncRNA UCA1; therapeutic target; cell viability; apoptosis
Affiliations: Department of The First Thoracic Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China. .

Abstract:  Objective: Lung cancer is one of the deadliest cancers responsible for significant mortality and morbidity across the globe. The unavailability of efficient treatments, lack of reliable biomarkers and potent therapeutic targets, limit the treatment of lung cancer. In this study, we explored the potential of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) urothelial carcinoma-associated 1 (UCA1) as the therapeutic target for lung cancer. Materials and methods: The expression analysis was carried out by quantitative Real Time-Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR). Cell viability was monitored by cell counting kit 8 (CCK-8) assay. The 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI), annexin-V/Propidium iodide staining and comet assays were used to detect apoptosis. Boyden chamber and wound heal assays were used for cell to asses cell invasion and migration respectively. Protein expression was determined by immunoblotting. Results: The expression of lncRNA UCA1 was determined by qRT-PCR in six different types of lung cancer cell lines. It was observed that lncRNA UCA1 was significantly (p &lt; 0.05) upregulated in all the lung cancer cell lines. To investigate the role of lncRNA UCA1 in lung cancer, its expression was suppressed by transfection of the lung cancer NCI-H23 cells by si-UCA1. The results showed that suppression of lncRNA UCA1 significantly (p &lt; 0.05) reduced the viability of NCI-H23 cancer cells via induction of the apoptosis. Furthermore, the lncRNA UCA1 suppression (p &lt; 0.05) significantly inhibited the migration and invasion of the NCI-H23 lung cancer at least in part via inhibition of mitogen-activated protein kinase 1 (MAPK1). Additionally, the suppression of MAPK1 exhibited similar effects on the proliferation, migration, and invasion of the NCI-H23 cells as that of UCA1 silencing. Finally, the co-suppression of lncRNA UCA1 and MAPK1 exhibited synergistic effects on cell proliferation, migration, and invasion. Conclusions: We demonstrated that lncRNA UCA1 could be an important therapeutic target for curbing lung cancer. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 ![file] , 
 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 ,