RETRACTED ARTICLE: LncRNA TUG1 promoted KIAA1199 expression via miR-600 to accelerate cell metastasis and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in colorectal cancer
Authors: Xiefu Zhang
Zhen Yang
Chunlin Zhao
Junfeng Sun
Jiaxiang Wang
Jiyi Hu
Guojun Wang
Journal: Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research (2018)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: Colorectal cancer; EMT; KIAA1199; Metastasis; lncRNA TUG1
Affiliations: Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, No.1 Jianshe East, Zhengzhou, 450052, China. ., Colorectal Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, China., Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, No.1 Jianshe East, Zhengzhou, 450052, China., Pediatric Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.

Abstract:  Background: LncRNA TUG1 has been reported to be highly expressed in CRC samples and cells and promoted metastasis by affecting EMT, indicating a poor prognosis for colorectal cancer (CRC). In this study, we determined the underlying mechanism for tumor oncogenesis of lncRNA TUG1 in CRC metastasis. Methods: The expressions of miR-600 and KIAA1199 in 76 CRC patients and CRC cells and CRC metastatic tissues were determined using qRT-PCR. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT)-related proteins were determined using western blot. CRC cell metastasis was assessed by colony formation, wound healing and transwell assay. Luciferase reporter gene assay was used to confirm miR-600 binding to KIAA1199 3'UTR. Results: Our data showed that lncRNA TUG1 was upregulated in CRC cells, miR-600 was downregulated in CRC tissues, cell lines and CRC metastatic tissues, and low miR-600 expression predicted a poor clinical prognosis. Overexpression of miR-600 suppressed CRC cell migration/invasion and EMT-related proteins in vitro, inhibited tumor volume and weight, and decreased the number of CRC liver metastasis in vivo. KIAA1199 was upregulated in CRC tissues, and was negatively regulated by miR-600. KIAA1199 overexpression promoted CRC cell migration and invasion, which reversed the inhibition effect of miR-600 mimic on migration and invasion of CRC cells. Moreover, TUG1 negatively regulated miR-600, and inhibition of TUG1 suppressed CRC cell migration and invasion and EMT-related proteins via regulating miR-600. Conclusion: Our study proved that TUG1 promoted KIAA1199 expression to accelerate EMT and metastasis of CRC cell through inhibition of miR-600 expression. 

Retracted: Yes

PubPeer comments:
 There appear to be numerous image duplications in the migration and invasion assays of figures 2 and 4. ![file] , 
 We apologize for the delay in responding to your comment. In fact, when we were re-checking the raw data recently, we regret to find that there is an error in figure 2 and 4 of the published version. Therefore, we have contacted the editorial office a month ago to require an erratum for this article. The editorial office has responded and we were now communicating for the correction. We hope the correction will be online as soon as possible. Thank you for your comments. , 
 Well, I found some additional duplications in figure 4f: ![file] , 
 I came here to post a very similar comment about Figures 2 and 4 as already made in #1. Since I already spent some time highlighting the possible duplications, I will post it here. ![file] , 
 #2 As the journal published the paper with these u201cerrorsu201d in the first place, perhaps they are not necessarily as diligent as the commenters above. Could the authors offer some credible explanation for how these (apparently) cut and pasted elements could occur by accident? My imagination is not up to the task. , 
 Dr. Sun, in comment #2 you write:  *we regret to find that there is an error in figure 2 and 4 of the published version* , but it seems there are at least **ten** errors (ten panels with possible overlapping areas) in these two figures. That severely damages my trust in the other data in this paper. , 
 Retracted [4 February 2021] . The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article [1] because after publication it was found that the authors did not obtain ethics approval prior to commencing the study. Additionally, concerns were raised regarding a number of image duplications within Figs. 2d, e, 4g and f. All authors agree to this retraction. , 
 The Retraction Notice is remarkable because the paper states that  The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, and all patients signed informed consent.  So, at least on paper, the ethics approval appears to be obtained. One can wonder how the Editors publisher staff found out it was actually not obtained. ,