Background. Actin filament-associated protein 1-antisense RNA 1 (AFAP1-AS1) plays an important role in the development and progression of several human cancers. However, its biological function in gastric cancer (GC) progression is still unknown. Methods. We used qRT-PCR to detect the relative expression of AFAP1-AS1 in GC tissues and cell lines. The loss-of-function assays were conducted to detect the effect of AFAP1-AS1 on GC development. Bioinformatics analysis, luciferase reporter gene analysis, and RIP analysis were used to identify and validate target genes of AFAP1-AS1. Finally, rescue tests were performed to confirm the influence of the AFAP1-AS1-miR-155-5p-FGF7 axis on GC development. Results. AFAP1-AS1 was upregulated in GC tissues and cell lines and was closely correlated with poor prognosis of GC patients. AFAP1-AS1 knockdown inhibited proliferation, migration, and invasion of GC cells, indicating that AFAP1-AS1 acts as an oncogene in GC. Bioinformatics analysis, dual-luciferase reporter gene detection, and RIP assays validated that AFAP1-AS1 directly interacts to miR-155-5p and could positively affect cell proliferation, migration, and invasion by regulation of the expression of miR-155-5p and FGF7. Further rescue assays revealed that AFAP1-AS1 promotes cell proliferation and metastasis through the miR-155-5p/FGF7 axis in GC. Conclusions. AFAP1-AS1 might be an oncogenic lncRNA that promoted GC progression by acting as a competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA) that regulates the expression of FGF7 through sponging miR-155-5p, suggesting that AFAP1-AS1 may be a novel potential therapeutic target for GC.
BackgroundTo relieve prostate biopsy-related pain, various local anesthetic methods have been used. The best approach was periprostatic nerve block (PNB) in the past decade. Recently, pelvic plexus block (PPB) was employed to ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Compared with the PNB, the PPB may block a more extensive area. Therefore, PPB may be more effective in relieving prostate biopsy-related pain. However, several prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPB and PNB drew conflicting conclusions, so we compared the difference of pain control between PPB and PNB for prostate biopsy.MethodsThe following databases were retrieved up to October 2020: PubMed, Chinese biomedicine literature database, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Internet databases, Wan fang databases and Google Scholar. Only the RCTs were included. The main outcome measures were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and complications. The literature quality and extracted data were evaluated by two authors independently. The software Review Manager (version 5.3) was used to perform the data analysis that comparing the difference of VAS score and complications between PPB and PNB.ResultsAfter screening, six articles including 336 patients from PPB group and 337 patients from PNB group were performed meta-analysis in this study. The results showed that there were no significant difference of pain control in probe insertion and local anesthetic injection between PPB and PNB, while compared with PNB, patients with PPB experienced less pain during biopsy and 30 min after biopsy, respectively(MD = −0.57, 95% CI: −1.11 to −0.03, Z = 2.06, P = 0.04; MD = −0.21, 95% CI: −0.40 to −0.02, Z = 2.15, P = 0.03). In subgroup analysis, the pooled results showed that PPB was superior to PNB in 12-cores biopsy (pooled MD = −1.16, 95% CI: −1.61 to −0.71, P < 0.00001), and more than 40-ml prostate size, regardless of transrectal or transperineal prostate biopsy. The reported major complications were urinary retention, hematuria, infection and hemospermia. The pooled results showed that there were no obvious difference in complications between PPB group and PNB group.ConclusionsOverall, this meta-analysis suggests that PPB provides safe and effective pain control of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, and PPB is superior to PNB. In future, it also needs more high quality, large samples RCTs to verify.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.