Oncology reports最新文献

Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the Transwell cell invasion assay data shown in Fig. 2B on p. 42 and the immunofluorescence data shown in Fig. 4D on p. 44 were strikingly similar to data appearing in other articles written by different authors at different research institutes that were submitted to different journals at around the same time. Moreover, a further investigation of this paper undertaken by the Editorial Office identified a large number of overlapping data panels comparing the Transwell cell migration and invasion assay data and the scratch‑wound assay data both within and between Figs. 2 and 3, where data which were intended to have shown the results from differently performed experiments had apparently been derived from the same original source, including an overlapping section of data within the 'MEG3+mimic' panel in Fig. 3G that would be difficult to attribute to pure chance. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been submitted for publication at around the same time as its submission to Oncology Reports, and given an overall lack of confidence in the presented data, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 40: 39‑48, 2018; DOI: 10.3892/or.2018.6424].

Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the cell invasion assay data shown in Fig. 6B on p. 940, and western blot data featured in Fig. 7B on p. 942, had already appeared in previously published articles written by different authors at different research institutes. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 45: 933‑944, 2021; DOI: 10.3892/or.2020.7905].

Zinc finger protein 180 (ZNF180) is a multifunctional protein that interacts with nucleic acids and regulates various cellular processes; however, the function of ZNF180 in colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unclear. The present study investigated the role and function of ZNF180 in CRC, and aimed to reveal the underlying molecular mechanism. The results revealed that ZNF180 was downregulated in CRC tissues and was associated with a good prognosis in patients with CRC. Additionally, the expression of ZNF180 was downregulated by methylation in CRC. In vivo and in vitro experiments revealed that ZNF180 overexpression was functionally associated with the inhibition of cell proliferation and the induction of apoptosis. Mechanistically, chromatin immunoprecipitation‑PCR and luciferase assays demonstrated that ZNF180 markedly regulated the transcriptional activity of methyltransferase 14, N6‑adenosine‑methyltransferase non‑catalytic subunit (METTL14) by directly binding to and activating its promoter region. Simultaneous overexpression of ZNF180 and knockdown of METTL14 indicated that the reduction of METTL14 could suppress the effects of ZNF180 on the induction of apoptosis. Clinically, the present study observed a significant positive correlation between ZNF180 and METTL14 expression levels, and low expression of ZNF180 and METTL14 predicted a poor prognosis in CRC. Overall, these findings revealed a novel mechanism by which the ZNF180/METTL14 axis may modulate apoptosis and cell proliferation in CRC. This evidence suggests that this axis may serve as a prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target in patients with CRC.

Non‑small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a highly prevalent lung malignancy characterized by insidious onset, rapid progression and advanced stage at the time of diagnosis, making radical surgery impossible. Sirtuin (SIRT) is a histone deacetylase that relies on NAD+ for its function, regulating the aging process through modifications in protein activity and stability. It is intricately linked to various processes, including glycolipid metabolism, inflammation, lifespan regulation, tumor formation and stress response. An increasing number of studies indicate that SIRTs significantly contribute to the progression of NSCLC by regulating pathophysiological processes such as energy metabolism, autophagy and apoptosis in tumor cells through the deacetylation of histones or non‑histone proteins. The present review elaborates on the roles of different SIRTs and their mechanisms in NSCLC, while also summarizing novel therapeutic agents based on SIRTs. It aims to present new ideas and a theoretical basis for NSCLC treatment.

Following the publication of the above article, a concerned reader drew to the Editor's attention that certain of the cell invasion assay data featured in Figs. 2G and H, 5M and N, and 9K and L, and the tumor images shown in Fig. 6B, were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles written by different authors at different research institutes that had either already been published elsewhere prior to the submission of this paper to Oncology Reports, or were under consideration for publication at around the same time (some of which have been retracted). In view of the fact that certain of these data had already apparently been published prior to the submission of this article for publication, the Editor of Oncology Reports has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 45: 117, 2021; DOI: 10.3892/or.2021.8068].

B‑cell lymphoma is difficult to cure because of its biological and clinical heterogeneity, and due to native chemoresistance. Immunotherapies that overcome cancer‑induced immune evasion have been the center of recent developments in oncology. This is emphasized by the accomplishment of various agents that disrupt programmed cell death protein 1 (PD‑1)‑mediated immune suppression in diverse tumors. However, while PD‑1 blockade has been effective in numerous malignancies, a significant proportion of cancers, including B‑cell lymphoma, show certain rates of primary resistance to these therapeutic strategies. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) have exhibited anticancer activity though suppressing cell proliferation, inducing differentiation and triggering apoptosis. The present study aimed to explore a therapeutic strategy combining a HDACi (romidepsin) and PD‑1 blockade (BMS‑1) in B‑cell lymphoma, utilizing a constructed mouse model of B‑cell lymphoma. The IC₅₀ of the two inhibitors was confirmed by MTT assay, and their inhibitory effects were revealed to be dose‑ and time‑dependent. The data demonstrated that the combined treatment of romidepsin and BMS‑1 synergistically inhibited the growth of B‑cell lymphoma. Furthermore, it was revealed that romidepsin and BMS‑1 synergistically triggered apoptosis in mouse B‑cell lymphoma. The synergistic effect of these agents was capable of activating tumor‑infiltrating lymphocytes, particularly CD3⁺CD4⁺ and CD3⁺CD8⁺ T cells. The results of the present study underscore the potential of HDAC inhibition in conjunction with PD‑1 blockade as a novel therapeutic approach for B‑cell lymphoma, highlighting the synergistic effects of these two mechanisms in enhancing antitumor immunity.

Following the publication of this article, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that, for the cell migration assay data shown in Fig. 3C on p. 1287, the '2.5 μg/ml' and '5.0 μg/ml' panels appeared to be overlapping, such that these data were apparently derived from the same original source where they were intended to show the results from differently performed experiments. Upon asking the authors to provide an explanation, after having referred back to their original data, the authors realized that they had made an inadvertent error in assembling this figure. The revised version of Fig. 3, now showing the correct data for the '5.0 μg/ml' experiment, is shown on the next page. Note that the error made in assembling the data in Fig. 3 did not greatly affect either the results or the conclusions reported in this paper, and all the authors agree to the publication of this corrigendum. The authors regret that this error went unnoticed prior to the publication of their article, and are grateful to the Editor of Oncology Reports for granting them this opportunity to publish a corrigendum. They also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 33: 1284‑1290, 2015; DOI: 10.3892/or.2014.3682].

Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the western blotting data shown in Fig. 4B and C on p. 1952, and the Transwell invasion assay data in Fig. 2F and 4I, had already appeared in previously published articles written by different authors at different research institutes (a number of which have been retracted). Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 42: 1946‑1956, 2019; DOI: 10.3892/or.2019.7302].

Subsequently to the publication of the above paper, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that, with the cell migration assay data shown in Fig. 7 on p. 901, the "TPA" and "TPA + U0126" panels were strikingly similar, such that data which were intended to show the results from differently performed experiments had apparently been derived from the same original source. In addition, it was noted that the "TPA + hispolon" and "TPA + NAC" data panels in Fig. 4B on p. 899 contained overlapping sections. Thirdly, a data panel was shared between Figs. 1 and 4, although this was intentional on the part of the authors as the same experiment was being portrayed in these figures.  The authors were able to re‑examine their original data files, and realized that errors were made in asssembling Figs. 4B and 7. The revised versions of Figs. 4 and 7, now containing the correct data for the "TPA + NAC" experiment in Fig. 4B and the Control ("Ctrl") experiment in Fig. 7, are shown on the next two pages. The authors wish to emphasize that the corrections made to these figures do not affect the overall conclusions reported in the paper, and they are grateful to the Editor of Oncology Reports for allowing them the opportunity to publish this corrigendum. All the authors agree to the publication of this corrigendum, and also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 35: 896‑904, 2016; DOI: 10.3892/or.2015.4445].

Following the publication of this article, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that the flow cytometric (FCM) plots in Fig. 2A on p. 2278 showing the 'Dasatinib' and 'CA‑4' experiments were duplicates of each other. After having re‑examined their original data, and due to the overall similarity of the data, the authors have realized that these data were inadvertently assembled incorrectly in the figure. They realize that they also made a further mistake regarding the writing of the ratios of mitochondrial membrane‑depolarized HO‑8910 cells for these FCM plots (essentially, these were written the wrong way around): The percentage of mitochondrial membrane‑depolarized HO‑8910 cells should have been written as 22.50% for the dasatinib‑treated cells (the centre‑left FCM plot) and 15.71% for the CA‑4‑treated cells (centre‑right plot). A revised version of Fig. 2 now showing alternative data for the FCM experiments shown in Fig. 2A, is shown on the next page. Note that the errors made in terms of assembling the data in Fig. 2A did not greatly affect either the results or the conclusions reported in this paper, and all the authors agree with the publication of this corrigendum. The authors regret that these errors went unnoticed prior to the publication of their article, and are grateful to the Editor of Oncology Reports for granting them this opportunity to publish a corrigendum. Furthermore, they apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 29: 2275‑2282, 2013; DOI: 10.3892/or.2013.2405].