Research demonstrates a miR-3913-3p/STX3 axis promoting lung adenocarcinoma progression, suggesting a potential therapeutic target.
The prognostic relevance and operational pathways of miR-3913-3p during disease advancement are not entirely clarified. This research intends to thoroughly assess the clinical importance and mechanistic contributions of miR-3913-3p within lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) contexts. Relationships linking miR-3913-3p abundance with five-year survival rates were examined through Kaplan-Meier methodology, while prognostic strength was determined by multivariate Cox regression modeling. Quantification of miR-3913-3p and STX3 in clinical specimens and cellular models was accomplished via RT-qPCR. Functional impacts on LUAD cells and regulatory interactions with target genes were validated through cell transfection, CCK-8 assays, Transwell migration/invasion assays, and dual-luciferase reporter assays. miR-3913-3p expression was significantly elevated in LUAD tissues compared to matched non-tumor tissues. High miR-3913-3p expression was significantly correlated with poor tumor differentiation, advanced TNM stage, and lymph node metastasis (p < 0.05). Multivariate Cox analysis identified high miR-3913-3p expression as a predictor of poor prognosis (HR = 2.450, 95% CI: 1.014–5.920, p = 0.046). Functionally, miR-3913-3p mimic enhanced the proliferative, migratory, and invasive capacities of LUAD cells, whereas miR-3913-3p inhibitor suppressed these malignant behaviors. Notably, co-transfection with si-STX3 rescued the inhibitory effects induced by the miR-3913-3p inhibitor. Mechanistically, dual-luciferase reporter assays confirmed that miR-3913-3p directly binds to the 3’untranslated region (3’UTR) of STX3, leading to its functional suppression. This study demonstrates the existence of a regulatory miR-3913-3p/STX3 axis in LUAD. miR-3913-3p likely promotes the proliferation, migration, and invasion of LUAD cells by targeting STX3, implicating this axis in LUAD pathogenesis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: