microRNA-195 inhibits cell proliferation in bladder cancer via inhibition of cell division control protein 42 homolog/signal transducer and activator of transcription-3 signaling
Authors: Minfeng Chen
Longfei Liu
Xiongbing Zu
Weiqian Yan
Cheng Zhao
Shiyu Tong
Lin Qi
Journal: Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine (2015)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: bladder cancer; cell division control protein 42 homolog; microRNA-195; proliferation.
Affiliations: Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, P.R. China., Department of Neurology, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, P.R. China.

Abstract:  microRNA (miR)-195 acts as a suppressor in multiple types of malignant tumors, including bladder cancer; however, the detailed function of miR-195 in bladder cancer remains largely unknown. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of miR-195 in the regulation of bladder cancer cell proliferation and to determine whether cell division control protein 42 homolog (Cdc42)/signal transducer and activator of transcription-3 (STAT3) signaling acts as a downstream effector of miR-195 in bladder cancer cells. Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to determine the expression levels of miR-195 in bladder cancer tissues and normal adjacent tissue. The results revealed that the expression of miR-195 was significantly downregulated in bladder cancer tissues compared with that in the normal adjacent tissues. A luciferase reporter assay was then conducted, which identified Cdc42 as a direct target of miR-195, and the expression of Cdc42 was significantly upregulated in bladder cancer tissues, as determined by western blotting. Furthermore, miR-195 negatively regulated the protein expression of Cdc42 in bladder cancer cells. An MTT assay was also conducted to determine the rate of cell proliferation. Upregulation of miR-195 or the inhibition of Cdc42 could inhibit bladder cancer cell proliferation, possibly through activation of STAT3 signaling. In addition, restoration of Cdc42 could reverse the inhibitory effect of miR-195 upregulation on bladder cancer cell proliferation. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that miR-195 plays an inhibitory role in the regulation of bladder cancer cell proliferation by directly targeting Cdc42/STAT3 signaling. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 following up on a tip from a social media user, this paper contains plagiarized sections from: Mean Sea Level, GPS, and the Geoid By Witold Fraczek, Esri Applications Prototype Lab https: www.esri.com news arcuser 0703 geoid1of3.html and Eustatic and Relative Sea Level Changes Alessio Rovere Paolo Stocchi Matteo Vacchi Curr Clim Change Rep (2016) 2:221u2013231 DOI 10.1007 s40641-016-0045-7 i will attempt to upload images comparing plagiarized sections (have had problems with attempts) , 
 #1 images comparing plagiarized sections in Khan to original sources ![file] ![file] ![file] , 
 u201cThis article has been retracted at the request of the Editor in Chief of the journal, as the author did not follow ethics in publication and plagiarized contents from online resources and published papers without due acknowledgment This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal http: www.elsevier.com locate withdrawalpolicy.u201d From: https: www.sciencedirect.com science article pii S1674987118300446 , 
 Podandrogyne Mathewsii very wrongly, if not intentionally, brought an unjustified allegation of plagiarism on the article entitled u201cWhy would sea level rise for global warming and polar ice melt?u201d published in Geoscience Frontiers. This paper appeared online in March 2018 and print version in March 2019. Allegation was made January 2nd 2020. Here I could sense the lack of trueness and integrity of the allegation. I would very clearly express the reality of all the allegations brought by Podandrogyne Mathewsii and by Actinopolyspora Biskrensis who also commented on January 29, 2020. I strongly object the way act of u201cplagiarismu201d has been used. We must understand the implication of the act of u201cplagiarismu201d. The use of examples from a non-academic, unpublished and posted in scientifically un-creditable blogs simply cannot be u201cplagiarismu201d. Such postings bear no copyright bindings. Use of figure 1A is a cartoon posted in http: www.sepmstrata.org Terminology.aspx?id=eustatic. Further, there is no record found for C. G. St. C. Kendall (2006) neither Emery (1995). I tried to get the reference but failed. This cartoon does not tell anything of sea level rise due to global warming and polar ice melt. I have used this cartoon just for general reader to disseminate idea of relative and eustatic sea level. Since the publication of Khan (2019) has been retracted, I will be happy to have the reference that I will inform Editorial section for necessary correction. Figure 3 of Khan (2019) and the model of the earth of Fraczek, Esri Applications Prototype Lab posted in https: www.esri.com news arcuser 0703 geoid1of3.html drawing some arbitrary geometrical lines are not the same. Figure 3 of Khan (2019) is the demonstration of earthu2019s internal mass distribution related to the shape of the earth. Hence the accusation of plagiarism is fully wrong and unsustainable. Figure 13A has been duly referred in the web references of Khan (2019) as https: en.wikipedia.org wiki Post-glacial_rebound. However, I do not accept that some photographs anonymously posted in the blogs of no peer reviewed scientific research works would be recognized as a plagiarized one. Even then I accept my negligence in adding these photographs in my research work. I am sorry. Figure 14B is a simple text book diagram can be found in many text books of earth science specially in structure geology and in geophysics. However, this diagram indirectly referred to Dobrin, M.B., 1976. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, third ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. 630pp; and Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., Keys, D.A., 1976. Applied Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, 860 pp in the paper of Khan (2019). Text of Fraczek (2003) is available in many Geophysics text books dealing with Earthu2019s gravitational field. Further it is not a research finding of Fraczek (2003). It is not published in any peer reviewed journal of copy right bindings. I do not think that the similarities in the text between Fraczek (2003) and Khan (2019) is an example of plagiarism. Even then these text can be found both in Dobrin, M.B., 1976. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, third ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. 630pp; and Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., Keys, D.A., 1976. Applied Geophysics, Cambridge University Press, 860 pp in the paper of Khan (2019). Text of Rovere et al. (2016), Curr. Clim. Ch. Rept. v.2 and the text in Khan (2019) in pages 482 and 483 are similar. But the way Rovere et al (2016) has referenced the statements; Khan (2019) has also referenced the statements in same way. Moreover, Rovere et al (2016) has been referenced couple of times in that section u201csea level measurement issuesu201d of Khan (2019). I am surprised to learn this as the plagiarized section. , 
 #4 *The use of examples from a non-academic, unpublished and posted in scientifically un-creditable blogs simply cannot be u201cplagiarismu201d. Such postings bear no copyright bindings.*  It was written in a blog, so it s not copyright, so using the words as my own is not plagiarism . , 
 #4 Dr. Kahn: My posting was only to inform readers of the retraction notice and the explanation provided by the journal. In my post, I did not personally characterize your behavior in any way. However in response to your defense of the reuse of text written by others *without attribution*: I can say that if you attempt to publish similarly unoriginal material in high quality journals, you should expect similar results. And if you did so in the past, those papers are likely to suffer a similar fate as this one. , 
 #6 For your information during my long spell of academic profession I have never never used text of others in any of my large volume of publications in quality journals. Still I do not understand why did I use similar text in this paper wherein these text have no implication with the main theme and findings of the research. However, I beg to differ with you about the views of reusing text written by others without attribution. Although I do agree with you that use of text of others must be attributed, provided the text is from a publication of a peer reviewed journal with copy right. In the publication of Khan (2019) text of Fraczek (2003) is from a blog and very informal. But the text of Rovere et al. (2016) is duly referred in the references instead of  quote -  unquote or  according to . This is my mistake. , 
 #7 As I said, this issue isnu2019t a reflection of just my own opinion: if you use text from other sources, (whether peer-reviewed sources, blogs, media, books, etc.) without attribution, you should expect most journals to react as this one did. Some journals may not check, and some may not care, but most expect original text or credit to the actual author. You may wish to review this article on this subject: https: www.aje.com en arc editing-tip-defining-plagiarism **Plagiarism from alternate sources** u201cFailing to cite the source of publicly available knowledge that is not in the scholarly literature. Similar to journal articles, sources such as books, webpages, blogs, lectures, and personal communication (including descriptions of unpublished ideas, with permission) should be referenced if they contributed unique information to your manuscript.u201d , 
 You see the last sentence quote,  with permission) should be referenced if they contributed unique information to your manuscript , unquote. In my case, all the so-called plagiarized text has no contribution at all to the unique information to the manuscript. Now who will judge about the unique contribution? is it the author? reviewer? or editor? So it is very difficult to generalize the issue. Unfortunately, in my long spell of university teaching I have seen that many of us play politics in the name of  Plagiarism stunt. Knowledge is universal, it is not any body s property. We should spread knowledge, disseminate knowledge as much as we can for the benefits of mankind. When Newton saw to fall an apple to the ground from the tree, he got the knowledge of gravitational attraction of the Earth and hence is the  Newton s Law of Gravitation . But the tree and apple is not Newton s property. Then, Newton must acknowledge and refer to the owner of the tree and apple for theory of gravitation!! So my dear friend, we should open our mind, we should be honest academically at least. Academic exploitation is the worst of everything. ,