Correction: Circ-HuR suppresses HuR expression and gastric cancer progression by inhibiting CNBP transactivation

Correction: Mol Cancer 18, 158 (2019)

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12943-019-1094-z

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified errors in Fig. 2f and in Fig. 5h. In Fig. 5h, the transwell invasion images for “AGS Mock + circ-Mock”, “AGS Mock + circ-HuR”, and “MKN-45 Mock + circ-Mock” were misused. After a self-investigation and carefully check of the archived images of this study, the authors found these errors happened inadvertently during the preparation of figures. The correct figures are given below.

Fig. 2

Over-expression of circ-HuR suppresses the growth and aggressiveness of gastric cancer. a MTT colorimetric assay showing the viability of AGS and MKN-45 cells stably transfected with empty vector (circ-Mock), circ-HuR, or lin-HuR. b and c Soft agar (b) and matrigel invasion (c) assays indicating the in vitro growth and invasion of AGS and MKN-45 cells stably transfected with circ-Mock, circ-HuR, or lin-HuR. d Representative (left panel), in vivo growth curve (middle panel), and weight at the end points (right panel) of xenograft tumors formed by subcutaneous injection of AGS cells stably transfected with circ-Mock or circ-HuR into the dorsal flanks of nude mice (n = 5 for each group). e Representative images (left panel) and quantification (right panel) of immunohistochemical staining showing the expression of Ki-67 and CD31 within xenograft tumors formed by hypodermic injection of AGS cells stably transfected with circ-Mock or circ-HuR (n = 5 for each group). Scale bars: 50 μm. f–h Representative images (f), H&E staining (g, arrowheads), and quantification (h, left panel) of lung metastatic colonization and Kaplan–Meier curves (h, right panel) of nude mice treated with tail vein injection of AGS cells stably transfected with mock or circ-HuR (n = 5 for each group). Scale bar: 100 μm. ANOVA and Student’s t-test analyzed the difference in a-e and h. Log-rank test for survival comparison in (h). *P < 0.01 vs. circ-Mock. Data are shown as mean ± SEM (error bars) and representative of three independent experiments in (a-c)

Fig. 5

Circ-HuR suppresses HuR expression, growth, and invasion of gastric cancer cells via repressing CNBP transactivation. a Dual-luciferase assay revealing the transactivation of CNBP in AGS and MKN-45 cells stably transfected with empty vector (mock) or CNBP, and those co-transfected with circ-Mock or circ-HuR. b ChIP and qPCR assays showing the changes in binding of CNBP to HuR promoter in AGS and MKN-45 cells stably transfected with mock or CNBP, and those co-transfected with circ-Mock or circ-HuR. c and d Dual-luciferase (c) and real-time qRT-PCR (d) assays indicating the activity of HuR promoter with wild type (WT) or mutant (Mut) CNBP binding site and transcript levels (normalized to β-actin, n = 4) of HuR in AGS and MKN-45 cells stably transfected with mock or CNBP, and those co-transfected with circ-Mock or circ-HuR. e Western blot assay showing the expression of CNBP, HuR, CCND2, and CTNNB1 in AGS cells stably transfected with CRISPRi-Scb or CRISPRi-CNBP #1, and those cotransfected with mock, CNBP, circ-Mock, or circ-HuR. f MTT colorimetric assay indicating the viability of AGS and MKN-45 cells stably transfected with mock or CNBP, and those co-transfected with circ-Mock or circ-HuR. g and h Soft agar (g) and matrigel invasion (h) assays showing in vitro growth and invasion of AGS and MKN-45 cells stably transfected with mock or CNBP, and those co-transfected with circ-Mock or circ-HuR. ANOVA analyzed the difference in (a-d and f–h). *P < 0.01 vs. mock + circ-Mock. Data are shown as mean ± SEM (error bars) and representative of three independent experiments in (a-h)