4.4 Article

Long non-coding RNA NEAT1 promotes human glioma tumor progression via miR-152-3p/CCT6A pathway

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 732, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2020.135086

关键词

NEAT1; miR-152-3p; CCT6A; Glioma progression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) nuclear enriched abundant transcript 1 (NEAT1) has been documented to implicate in diverse tumor progression. However, the mechanism of NEAT1 in glioma was rarely reported. Methods: The levels of NEAT1, microRNA-152-3p (miR-152-3p) and chaperonin containing TCP1 subunit 6A (CCT6A) in glioma tissues and cells were measured by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRTPCR). The cell viability, apoptotic rate, the migrated and invaded abilities of A172 and U251 cells were evaluated via cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8), flow cytometry and Transwell assay, respectively. The mice xenograft model was constructed to further verify the effect of NEAT1. The interactions between miR-152-3p and NEAT1 or CCT6A were predicted by starBase v2.0 or TargetScan, then luciferase reporter assay, RNA immunoprecipitation (RIP) and RNA pull-down assay were performed to validate the interaction. The protein level of CCT6A was detected by Western blot assay. Results: The levels of NEAT1, CCT6A were highly expressed, but miR-152-3p was decreased in glioma tissues and cells. NEAT1 depletion or miR-152-3p mimics suppressed cell viability, migrated and invaded abilities but induced apoptotic rate in A172 and U251 cells, while the introduction of CCT6A partly counteracted these impacts. In addition, NEAT1 silencing impeded xenograft tumor growth in vivo. MiR-152-3p was verified as a direct target of NEAT1 and directly targeted CCT6A. CCT6A expression was upregulated by NEAT1 and reversed by miR-152-3p. Conclusion: NEAT1 enhanced glioma progression, partially through miR-152-3p/CCT6A pathway. The novel regulatory network might contribute to the diagnosis and treatment of glioma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据