Radioimmunoassay of human plasma ACTH was developed. Rabbit was immunized by a1-28 ACTH conjugated to BSA. A specific antiserum with an optimal dilution of 1:32,000-60,000 was obtained. The radioiodination of a1-28 ACTH was processed by chloramine-T oxidation-sodium metabisulfite method, and the radiochemical purity of 125I-a1-28 ACTH was about 90-95.5% . The sensitivity of the present assay was 4 pg/ml, with a range of 10-640 pg/ml. The intraassay coefficient of variation was 2.3-7.0% while the interassay coefficient of variation 8.5-8.8%.The concentration of human plasma ACTH was determined by this assay in 20 healthy adults, and the results ranged from 10-90 pg/ml at SAM. The levels of plasma ACTH showed apparent circadian periodicity. In five patients the results of plasma ACTH were consistent with their clinical diagnoses.

Objective　To examine the expressions of estrogen receptor α (ERα), estrogen receptor β (ERβ) and pituitary-specific truncated estrogen receptor product-1 (TERP-1) in diethylstilbestrol (DES) induced prolactinoma of rats. Methods　Ovariectomised Wistar rats were subcutaneously implanted with an implant containing 20 mg DES. Rats were implanted with a blank implant as controls. Eight weeks later, serum prolactin level of rats was measured by RIA. Prolactin immunoreactive cells of anterior pituitary were detected by immunohistochemistry assay. ERα, ERβ and TERP-1 mRNAs in pituitaries were examined by RT-PCR. Results　Serum prolactin levels, pituitary weights and pituitary prolactin immunoreactive cell countings in experimental group rats were all obviously higher than those in control group (P＜0.001 respectively). ERα, ERβ and TERP-1 mRNAs were all transcripted in DES induced rat prolactinomas. ERα and TERP-1 mRNA levels were significantly higher in experimental group than those in control group (P＜0.001 and P＜0.05). Conclusion　Estrogen plays a direct role in regulating pituitary prolactin cells through estrogen receptors. Further functional studies will be required to determine whether coexpression of ER variants along with normal ER confers a pathophysiological role in pituitary hormone regulation and (or) tumor cell proliferation.

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are a group of endogenous RNA molecules which exceed 200 nt in length, lack complete specific open reading frame, and completely lack or possessvery limited protein-coding capacity. Recent studies have revealed that lncRNAs participate in critical processes such as genomic imprinting, cell differentiation, and immune reaction, etc. lncRNAs regulate gene expression at the epigenetic, transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels by modulating chromatin remodeling and histone modifications, interfering the transcription, regulating patterns of alternative splicing, generating small RNAs, and modulating protein activation and localization. Through their numerous functions, lncRNAs play critical roles in the growth, development, senescence, death, and other important physiological and pathological processes. Further investigation into the regulation of gene expression mediated by lncRNAs will be of great value in the thorough understanding of pathogenies and provide new molecular markers and drug targets of diseases.
Alternative Splicing ; Chromatin Assembly and Disassembly ; Gene Expression ; Open Reading Frames ; Proteins ; RNA, Long Noncoding

The management of chronic wounds presents significant challenges, characterized by a low rate of healing and substantial impairment of patients’ quality of life, while also exerting a considerable strain on healthcare resources. Wound healing is a multifactorial and dynamic process, necessitating close monitoring of wound changes and timely, appropriate interventions. Smart bandage/dressing, an innovative approach born from interdisciplinary research, offers a new generation of wound care. It enables dynamic quantitative monitoring of wound conditions, facilitates transdermal drug release and physical mode therapeutics, and adjusts interventions in real time based on monitoring outcomes. In comparison to traditional wound dressings, smart bandages exhibit attributes such as real-time responsiveness, precision, and convenience. They not only simplify wound management but also enhance patient comfort and compliance, showcasing potential as a safe and effective new treatment modality. Smart bandages hold promise for elevating the efficiency of managing chronic wounds, reducing morbidity rates, alleviating the burden of disease, and ultimately improving patients’ quality of life. This paper summarized the recent research progress of smart bandages and provide insights into novel wound care strategies.

The management of chronic wounds presents significant challenges, characterized by a low rate of healing and substantial impairment of patients’ quality of life, while also exerting a considerable strain on healthcare resources. Wound healing is a multifactorial and dynamic process, necessitating close monitoring of wound changes and timely, appropriate interventions. Smart bandage/dressing, an innovative approach born from interdisciplinary research, offers a new generation of wound care. It enables dynamic quantitative monitoring of wound conditions, facilitates transdermal drug release and physical mode therapeutics, and adjusts interventions in real time based on monitoring outcomes. In comparison to traditional wound dressings, smart bandages exhibit attributes such as real-time responsiveness, precision, and convenience. They not only simplify wound management but also enhance patient comfort and compliance, showcasing potential as a safe and effective new treatment modality. Smart bandages hold promise for elevating the efficiency of managing chronic wounds, reducing morbidity rates, alleviating the burden of disease, and ultimately improving patients’ quality of life. This paper summarized the recent research progress of smart bandages and provide insights into novel wound care strategies.

Objective:To investigate the incidence of postoperative complications in Chinese patients with gastric or colorectal cancer, and to evaluate the risk factors for postoperative complications.Methods:This was a national, multicenter, prospective, registry-based, cohort study of data obtained from the database of the Prevalence of Abdominal Complications After Gastro- enterological Surgery (PACAGE) study sponsored by the China Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Union. The PACAGE database prospectively collected general demographic characteristics, protocols for perioperative treatment, and variables associated with postoperative complications in patients treated for gastric or colorectal cancer in 20 medical centers from December 2018 to December 2020. The patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of postoperative complications. Postoperative complications were categorized and graded in accordance with the expert consensus on postoperative complications in gastrointestinal oncology surgery and Clavien-Dindo grading criteria. The incidence of postoperative complications of different grades are presented as bar charts. Independent risk factors for occurrence of postoperative complications were identified by multifactorial unconditional logistic regression.Results:The study cohort comprised 3926 patients with gastric or colorectal cancer, 657 (16.7%) of whom had a total of 876 postoperative complications. Serious complications (Grade III and above) occurred in 4.0% of patients (156/3926). The rate of Grade V complications was 0.2% (7/3926). The cohort included 2271 patients with gastric cancer with a postoperative complication rate of 18.1% (412/2271) and serious complication rate of 4.7% (106/2271); and 1655 with colorectal cancer, with a postoperative complication rate of 14.8% (245/1655) and serious complication rate of 3.0% (50/1655). The incidences of anastomotic leakage in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer were 3.3% (74/2271) and 3.4% (56/1655), respectively. Abdominal infection was the most frequently occurring complication, accounting for 28.7% (164/572) and 39.5% (120/304) of postoperative complications in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer, respectively. The most frequently occurring grade of postoperative complication was Grade II, accounting for 65.4% (374/572) and 56.6% (172/304) of complications in patients with gastric and colorectal cancers, respectively. Multifactorial analysis identified (1) the following independent risk factors for postoperative complications in patients in the gastric cancer group: preoperative comorbidities (OR=2.54, 95%CI: 1.51-4.28, P<0.001), neoadjuvant therapy (OR=1.42, 95%CI:1.06-1.89, P=0.020), high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (ASA score 2 points:OR=1.60, 95% CI: 1.23-2.07, P<0.001, ASA score ≥3 points:OR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.25-0.73, P=0.002), operative time >180 minutes (OR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.42-2.31, P<0.001), intraoperative bleeding >50 mL (OR=1.29,95%CI: 1.01-1.63, P=0.038), and distal gastrectomy compared with total gastrectomy (OR=0.65,95%CI: 0.51-0.83, P<0.001); and (2) the following independent risk factors for postoperative complications in patients in the colorectal cancer group: female (OR=0.60, 95%CI: 0.44-0.80, P<0.001), preoperative comorbidities (OR=2.73, 95%CI: 1.25-5.99, P=0.030), neoadjuvant therapy (OR=1.83, 95%CI:1.23-2.72, P=0.008), laparoscopic surgery (OR=0.47, 95%CI: 0.30-0.72, P=0.022), and abdominoperineal resection compared with low anterior resection (OR=2.74, 95%CI: 1.71-4.41, P<0.001). Conclusion:Postoperative complications associated with various types of infection were the most frequent complications in patients with gastric or colorectal cancer. Although the risk factors for postoperative complications differed between patients with gastric cancer and those with colorectal cancer, the presence of preoperative comorbidities, administration of neoadjuvant therapy, and extent of surgical resection, were the commonest factors associated with postoperative complications in patients of both categories.

Objective:To investigate the incidence of postoperative complications in Chinese patients with gastric or colorectal cancer, and to evaluate the risk factors for postoperative complications.Methods:This was a national, multicenter, prospective, registry-based, cohort study of data obtained from the database of the Prevalence of Abdominal Complications After Gastro- enterological Surgery (PACAGE) study sponsored by the China Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Union. The PACAGE database prospectively collected general demographic characteristics, protocols for perioperative treatment, and variables associated with postoperative complications in patients treated for gastric or colorectal cancer in 20 medical centers from December 2018 to December 2020. The patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of postoperative complications. Postoperative complications were categorized and graded in accordance with the expert consensus on postoperative complications in gastrointestinal oncology surgery and Clavien-Dindo grading criteria. The incidence of postoperative complications of different grades are presented as bar charts. Independent risk factors for occurrence of postoperative complications were identified by multifactorial unconditional logistic regression.Results:The study cohort comprised 3926 patients with gastric or colorectal cancer, 657 (16.7%) of whom had a total of 876 postoperative complications. Serious complications (Grade III and above) occurred in 4.0% of patients (156/3926). The rate of Grade V complications was 0.2% (7/3926). The cohort included 2271 patients with gastric cancer with a postoperative complication rate of 18.1% (412/2271) and serious complication rate of 4.7% (106/2271); and 1655 with colorectal cancer, with a postoperative complication rate of 14.8% (245/1655) and serious complication rate of 3.0% (50/1655). The incidences of anastomotic leakage in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer were 3.3% (74/2271) and 3.4% (56/1655), respectively. Abdominal infection was the most frequently occurring complication, accounting for 28.7% (164/572) and 39.5% (120/304) of postoperative complications in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer, respectively. The most frequently occurring grade of postoperative complication was Grade II, accounting for 65.4% (374/572) and 56.6% (172/304) of complications in patients with gastric and colorectal cancers, respectively. Multifactorial analysis identified (1) the following independent risk factors for postoperative complications in patients in the gastric cancer group: preoperative comorbidities (OR=2.54, 95%CI: 1.51-4.28, P<0.001), neoadjuvant therapy (OR=1.42, 95%CI:1.06-1.89, P=0.020), high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (ASA score 2 points:OR=1.60, 95% CI: 1.23-2.07, P<0.001, ASA score ≥3 points:OR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.25-0.73, P=0.002), operative time >180 minutes (OR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.42-2.31, P<0.001), intraoperative bleeding >50 mL (OR=1.29,95%CI: 1.01-1.63, P=0.038), and distal gastrectomy compared with total gastrectomy (OR=0.65,95%CI: 0.51-0.83, P<0.001); and (2) the following independent risk factors for postoperative complications in patients in the colorectal cancer group: female (OR=0.60, 95%CI: 0.44-0.80, P<0.001), preoperative comorbidities (OR=2.73, 95%CI: 1.25-5.99, P=0.030), neoadjuvant therapy (OR=1.83, 95%CI:1.23-2.72, P=0.008), laparoscopic surgery (OR=0.47, 95%CI: 0.30-0.72, P=0.022), and abdominoperineal resection compared with low anterior resection (OR=2.74, 95%CI: 1.71-4.41, P<0.001). Conclusion:Postoperative complications associated with various types of infection were the most frequent complications in patients with gastric or colorectal cancer. Although the risk factors for postoperative complications differed between patients with gastric cancer and those with colorectal cancer, the presence of preoperative comorbidities, administration of neoadjuvant therapy, and extent of surgical resection, were the commonest factors associated with postoperative complications in patients of both categories.