Long noncoding RNA LINC01278 favors the progression of osteosarcoma via modulating miR‐133a‐3p/PTHR1 signaling
Authors: Zhigang Qu
Shenglong Li
Journal: Journal of cellular physiology (2020)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: PTHR1; ceRNA; lncRNA; miR-133a-3p; osteosarcoma.
Affiliations: Department of Spine Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China., Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Surgery, Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.

Abstract:  As one of the most aggressive malignancies, osteosarcoma has high risks of death. Although long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) may promote the osteosarcoma progression as verified, the potential molecular mechanism of lncRNAs in osteosarcoma remains unknown. Herein, we analyzed lncRNA microarray of osteosarcoma and selected LINC01278 as the study object. Then, we found that the expression of LINC01278 tested by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction was enhanced in tumor tissues compared with the para-carcinoma tissues and related to clinical stage, distant metastasis in osteosarcoma. In addition, the clinical outcomes were poor in osteosarcoma patients with high LINC01278 level. Moreover, LINC01278 promoted proliferation and restrained apoptosis in osteosarcoma cells. Afterward, mechanistic studies turned out that LINC01278 was a competing endogenous RNA of parathyroid hormone type 1 receptor (PTHR1) in osteosarcoma by sponging miR-133a-3p, which was considered as a tumor inhibitor in osteosarcoma. Furthermore, PTHR1 downregulation restored the impacts of inhibited miR-133a-3p on the processes in osteosarcoma cells. Our findings clarified that the carcinogenic effect of LINC01278 in osteosarcoma was mediated through miR-133a-3p/PTHR1 signaling, creating a novel insight into good targets for the therapy and prognosis of osteosarcoma. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Figure 2d. ![file] , 
 Dear Parashorea Tomentella Thank you for your comment and sorry for my delay.Certainly, we made a serious error in preparing figures. We have contacted the publisher to correct the issue of this figure on 2021 2 19, and it won t influence the conclusion of the study. Meanwhile, we had carefully checked the raw data, and the data could show the reliability of the results in Figure 2. The corrected results were in the documents. Thanks for your comment again. Shenglong Li ![file] , 
 #2 For the benefit of other researchers, to help them avoid making a similar error, can you comment on how the problematic Vector panel came into existence? , 
 Your comment is significant to our research. We have carefully checked our raw data and reviewed the Figures of our research. In order to reduce the measurement error, after Flow cytometry assay, we measured the cell apoptosis percentage of each group twice and calculated an average. Then we placed only one representative image in our figures. We apologized for our mistakes when we combined the Figures. We wrongly placed the alternative image of sh-NC in the place of vector. According to your suggestion, we have replaced the wrong image in Figure 2d with the right one. Thank you very much for your patient guidance and best wishes to you! ,