Back to all available

Nicotine-induced immune escape mechanisms in lung adenocarcinoma: ceRNA network toxicology, and molecular dynamics simulations

biochemistry
computational-biology
toxicology
epidemiology
oncology

Abstract

Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), the most common subtype of lung cancer and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths, is strongly associated with cigarette smoking and nicotine exposure. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying nicotine-induced LUAD remain unclear. This study employed an integrative approach combining network toxicology, ceRNA analysis, molecular docking, and dynamics simulations to investigate nicotine’s role in LUAD. Network toxicology identified 81 potential nicotine targets, with 12 core targets showing significant differential expression in LUAD. Functional enrichment suggested involvement of immune escape, inflammation, and cell death. A ceRNA network highlighted miR-101 and miR-155-5p as key regulators. Molecular docking and dynamics simulations demonstrated strong and stable binding between nicotine and core targets. These findings reveal environmental toxicological mechanisms driving LUAD and offer potential therapeutic targets.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].