HMGB1's role in tumors is complex and diverse,and it exerts its biological function by combining with different receptors.One of the receptors is called RAGE,which is localized to the cell membrane and binds to HMGB1 released outside the cell.The HMGB1/RAGE axis promotes tumor development,moreover,tumor development and its drug resistance are closely related to inflammation.This article mainly reviews the molecular mechanism of HMGB1/RAGE axis in pro-inflammatory and protumor effects in pancreatic,colorectal and liver cancers.We also summarize the research progress of papaverine and its derivatives for the treatment of HMGB1/RAGE axis in tumor inflammation,with aims of providing new ideas for exploring the molecular mechanism of action in tumor inflammation,and providing a new theoretical basis for the research of HMGB1/RAGE axis therapeutics.

Objective: To investigate the effect of cell-to-cell communication amongst single-cell clones from healthy periodontium with different osteogenic differentiation potentials on change of osteogenic differentiation capabilities and the role histone acetyltransferase partaken in this process. Methods: In order to research the change of osteogenic differentiation ability via cell-to-cell communication, indirect co-culture method was used by placing two single-cell clones with different osteogenesis potentials in each of the 6-well plates. Blank control, weak and strong osteogenic groups were set up, corresponding to Transwell chambers with blank, cells of weak osteogenesis ability and cells of strong osteogenesis ability, respectively. Each group was made in triplicate. After co-culture for four days, Transwell chamber was removed. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and alizarin red staining were employed to detect the change of osteogenic differentiation ability. The acetylation level of H3 was measured by using Western blotting. Histone acetyltransferases were detected by qPCR. Results: Single-cell clones were ensured from mesenchymal stem cells by flow cytometer, the positive expression of CD29, CD90, CD105, CD146 was (99.80±0.02)%, (99.36±0.18)%, (99.41±0.05)% and (95.10±2.11)%, respectively. And CD31 and CD34 expression were (0.29±0.11)% and (0.22±0.13)%, respectively. Alizarin red and oil red O staining confirmed that single-cell clones had the abilities of adipogenesis and osteogenesis. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and alizarin red staining indicated that different single-cell clones were heterogeneity in osteogenesis differentiation. Indirect co-culture indicated that the mRNA expression of osteocalcin (OCN) were 14.24±5.60 and 4.78±2.90, respectively and Runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2) were 2.75±1.44 and 1.61±0.44, respectively, in strong and weak osteogenic groups. They were significantly higher compared to the blank group (the mRNA expression of OCN and RUNX2 were 1.00±0.47 and 1.00±0.39, respectively). The expression of OCN and RUNX2 were also higher in strong osteogenic group than that in weak osteogenic group (P<0.05). The mean gray level of the acetylation of H3 in strong osteogenic group (0.76±0.09) and weak osteogenic group (0.54±0.12) were also higher than that in the blank group (0.30±0.04)(P<0.05). qPCR results showed that KAT6A in strong osteogenic group exhibiting higher expression (P<0.05) compared to weak osteogenic group and the blank group, which were corresponding to the changes of acetylation levels. Conclusions Single-cell clones from healthy periodontium showed heterogeneity in osteogenic differentiation abilities. Single-cell clones with strong osteogenesis abilities had an advantage over others by promoting others' osteogenesis differentiation and this change mediated by cell-to-cell communication might be caused by modulating KAT6A to affect the acetylation level of histone.

BACKGROUND: The clinical trials of new anti-tumor drugs are prospering in China. The acceptance of clinical trials in patients is an important factor affecting the speed and quality of clinical trials. Previous studies have investigated the acceptance of clinical trials in those cancer patients, who have never participated in a trial. This study is designed to investigate and compare the acceptance and related causes of clinical trials in cancer patients who have once participated in a clinical trial or not. METHODS: From June 2018 to April 2019, a standardized questionnaire-based survey was conducted among two groups of cancer patients classified by history of clinical trial participation in Cancer hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, mainly focusing on their overall acceptance of clinical trials and related considerations, including the role of attending doctors, as well as group differences between the two participants. RESULTS: A total of 538 patients were enrolled with an average age of 53.5 years old, 51.1% of whom were males, and 43.3% of whom have never participated in a clinical trial. Overall, 502 patients (93.3%) were willing to or recommend their relatives or friends to participate in clinical trials, and patients with history of clinical trial participation had higher willingness (96.6% vs 90.8%, P=0.008). Patients were most likely to be motivated by expectation of optimal treatment (100.0% vs 99.3%) for both those who had once participated in a clinical trial or those not, respectively followed by financial burden reduction (56.0%) and recommendation by attending doctor (43.7%). The main reasons for unwillingness-to-participate for those who had once participated in a clinical trial were abandoning other treatment options, divided into control group or additional visits, while for those who had never participated in a clinical trial, ineffective treatment or serious adverse reactions were their main concerns. In the decision-making of clinical trial participation, 88% patients highly valued the role of recommendation by attending doctors. Among patients without trial participation history, 60.9% of those had no unwillingness-to-participate expressed that recommendation by attending doctors would change their decisions. The study also reported patients' preferences for information and access to clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS The acceptance of clinical trials in cancer patients in our hospital is generally high, especially in patients who had a history of trial participation. It's of substantial significance to give full play to the role of doctors in improving the acceptance of clinical trials of cancer patients in China.

BACKGROUND: Early investigation suggested patients' level of awareness regarding clinical trials was related with willingness to participation. This study was intended to evaluate the level of awareness of cancer patients regarding clinical trials and related influencing factors, and to compare the differences of awareness between patients who attended clinical trials before and not. METHODS: From Jun, 2018 to April, 2019, standardized question-naires were gathered from cancer patients (attended clinical trials vs not attended clinical trials) in our hospital regarding basic information and 10 other questions about awareness. The level of awareness was evaluated and patients were classified into "low cognition" and "high cognition" groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine whether certain characteristics would predict for awareness. RESULTS: Of the 617 participants, 38.6% have attended clinical trials before. 338 (54.6%) patients had a correct overall understanding of clinical trials, while 44 (7.1%) patients still thought participants were the victim of scientific research. Except for the compensation of medical expenses (51.5% vs 48.7%) and related laws of clinical trials (52.3% vs 45.5%), other parts of understanding were elevated in patients attended clinical trials before comparing with patients who didn't, including significance (86.2% vs 77.6%), risk disclosure (91.2% vs 71.6%), confidentiality (73.2% vs 59.7%), voluntariness (95.8% vs 76.3%), withdrawal (86.6% vs 68.2%) and expenses (62.8% vs 39.2%). The proportion of participants who understand these components did not increase even in 239 patients who had attended clinical trials before. Participants who attended clinical trials before (OR=1.83, 95%CI: 1.11-3.00), unmarried/divorced (OR=5.04, 95%CI: 1.73-14.66), retired (OR=2.53, 95%CI: 1.16-5.50) had a higher level of awareness, while patients who had bad impression with doctors (OR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.26-0.72) had lower awareness. CONCLUSIONS The current level of awareness for clinical trials of cancer patients in our hospital was relatively low, even in patients who had attended clinical trials before. It's necessary to improve patients' awareness of clinical trial by promoting harmony relationship between patients and doctors, as well as by enhancing related propagation. Strengthening the adequacy and efficacy of informed consent in clinical trials also needs to be achieved in the future.