Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

GPR126, also known as ADGRG6, is one of the most deeply studied aGPCRs. Initially, GPR126 was thought to be a receptor associated with muscle development and was primarily expressed in the muscular and skeletal systems. With the deepening of research, it was found that GPR126 is expressed in multiple mammalian tissues and organs, and is involved in many biological processes such as embryonic development, nervous system development, and extracellular matrix interactions. Compared with other aGPCRs proteins, GPR126 has a longer N-terminal domain, which can bind to ligands one-to-one and one-to-many. Its N-terminus contains five domains, a CUB (complement C1r/C1s, Uegf, Bmp1) domain, a PTX (Pentraxin) domain, a SEA (Sperm protein, Enterokinase, and Agrin) domain, a hormone binding (HormR) domain, and a conserved GAIN domain. The GAIN domain has a self-shearing function, which is essential for the maturation, stability, transport and function of aGPCRs. Different SEA domains constitute different GPR126 isomers, which can regulate the activation and closure of downstream signaling pathways through conformational changes. GPR126 has a typical aGPCRs seven-transmembrane helical structure, which can be coupled to Gs and Gi, causing cAMP to up- or down-regulation, mediating transmembrane signaling and participating in the regulation of cell proliferation, differentiation and migration. GPR126 is activated in a tethered-stalk peptide agonism or orthosteric agonism, which is mainly manifested by self-proteolysis or conformational changes in the GAIN domain, which mediates the rapid activation or closure of downstream pathways by tethered agonists. In addition to the tethered short stem peptide activation mode, GPR126 also has another allosteric agonism or tunable agonism mode, which is specifically expressed as the GAIN domain does not have self-shearing function in the physiological state, NTF and CTF always maintain the binding state, and the NTF binds to the ligand to cause conformational changes of the receptor, which somehow transmits signals to the GAIN domain in a spatial structure. The GAIN domain can cause the 7TM domain to produce an activated or inhibited signal for signal transduction, For example, type IV collagen interacts with the CUB and PTX domains of GPR126 to activate GPR126 downstream signal transduction. GPR126 has homology of 51.6%-86.9% among different species, with 10 conserved regions between different species, which can be traced back to the oldest metazoans as well as unicellular animals.In terms of diseases, GPR126 dysfunction involves the pathological process of bone, myelin, embryo and other related diseases, and is also closely related to the occurrence and development of malignant tumors such as breast cancer and colon cancer. However, the biological function of GPR126 in various diseases and its potential as a therapeutic target still needs further research. This paper focuses on the structure, interspecies differences and conservatism, signal transduction and biological functions of GPR126, which provides ideas and references for future research on GPR126.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background::Homoharringtonine (HHT) is an effective anti-inflammatory, anti-viral, and anti-tumor protein synthesis inhibitor that has been applied clinically. Here, we explored the therapeutic effects of HHT in a mouse heart transplant model.Methods::Healthy C57BL/6 mice were used to observe the toxicity of HHT in the liver, kidney, and hematology. A mouse heart transplantation model was constructed, and the potential mechanism of HHT prolonging allograft survival was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis, immunostaining, and bulk RNA sequencing analysis. The HHT-T cell crosstalk was modeled ex vivo to further verify the molecular mechanism of HHT-induced regulatory T cells (Tregs) differentiation. Results::HHT inhibited the activation and proliferation of T cells and promoted their apoptosis ex vivo. Treatment of 0.5 mg/kg HHT for 10 days significantly prolonged the mean graft survival time of the allografts from 7 days to 48 days ( P <0.001) without non-immune toxicity. The allografts had long-term survival after continuous HHT treatment for 28 days. HHT significantly reduced lymphocyte infiltration in the graft, and interferon-γ-secreting CD4 + and CD8 + T cells in the spleen ( P <0.01). HHT significantly increased the number of peripheral Tregs (about 20%, P <0.001) and serum interleukin (IL)-10 levels. HHT downregulated the expression of T cell receptor (TCR) signaling pathway-related genes ( CD4, H2-Eb1, TRAT1, and CD74) and upregulated the expression of IL-10 and transforming growth factor (TGF) -β pathway-related genes and Treg signature genes ( CTLA4, Foxp3, CD74, and ICOS). HHT increased CD4 + Foxp3 + cells and Foxp3 expression ex vivo, and it enhanced the inhibitory function of inducible Tregs. Conclusions::HHT promotes Treg cell differentiation and enhances Treg suppressive function by attenuating the TCR signaling pathway and upregulating the expression of Treg signature genes and IL-10 levels, thereby promoting mouse heart allograft acceptance. These findings may have therapeutic implications for organ transplant recipients, particularly those with viral infections and malignancies, which require a more suitable anti-rejection medication.