Figure 4.

Bioinformatics analysis confirmed that the 3′‐end of SUMO1P3 had complementary sequences of miR‐320a (A). Dual‐luciferase reporter analysis was performed to ascertain the relationship between SUMO1P3 and miR‐320a. The presence of miR‐320a and SUMO1P3 decreased luciferase activity of HepG2 cells, but miR‐320a presence did not influence luciferase activity of HepG2 cells transfected by SUMO1P3‐mt (B). The expression of miR‐320a was decreased in HCC cells (HepG2) compared to normal hepatic cell line THLE‐3 (C), and the levels of miR‐320a were obviously lower in HCC tissues than in non‐malignant ones. But the knockdown of SUMO1P3 enhanced the expression of miR‐320a (D). **P < .01; NR: negative reference; si‐SUMO1P3: HepG2 cells transfected by si‐SUMO1P3 plasmid; si‐NC: HepG2 cells transfected by negative control plasmid, acted as NR