CircCDR1 sponges miR-1290 to regulate cell proliferation, migration, invasion, and apoptosis in esophageal squamous cell cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since circCDR1 was abnormally expressed in esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC), the current study explored whether circCDR1 affected ESCC. Detailedly, circCDR1 expression in ESCC and linear isoform and stability of circCDR1 were detected by RT-qPCR. The location of circCDR1 was detected by fluorescence <i>in situ</i> hybridization (FISH). After transfection, the cell biological functions were detected by wound-healing, CCK-8, colony formation, and flow cytometry assays. The target of circCDR1 was predicted by bioinformatics, FISH, RNA pull-down, and dual-luciferase reporter assays. The correlation between circCDR1 and miR-1290 was analyzed by Pearson’s correlation analysis. A subcutaneous-xenotransplant tumor model in BALB/c nude mice was established and the levels of circCDR1, miR-1290, and apoptosis/metastasis/proliferation-related factors in the cancer cells and tissues were detected by immunohistochemical analysis, western blot, or RT-qPCR. As a result, circCDR1 was low-expressed in ESCC tissues and cells, while miR-1290 was high-expressed. CircCDR1 was regulated and was negatively correlated with miR-1290. CircCDR1, located in cytoplasm, inhibited the viability, proliferation, migration, and invasion of the cancer cells and the expressions of Bcl-2, N-cadherin, and Vimentin, but enhanced cell apoptosis and the expressions of C caspase-3, Bax, E-cadherin, IGFBP4, LHX6 and NFIX. <i>In vivo</i>, circCDR1 promoted xenotransplanted tumor weight and volume, and the expressions of C caspase-3 and Bax yet suppressed the levels of Bcl-2, miR-1290, and Ki-67 in tumor tissues. The effects of circCDR1 on both cancer cells and tissues were opposite to and reversed by miR-1290 mimic. Collectively, circCDR1 sponged miR-1290 to regulate the progression of ESCC both <i>in vitro</i> and <i>in vivo</i>.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".