Objective:To investigate whether long non-coding RNA(lncRNA) AW112010 can improve insulin resistance in aging adipocytes through the miR-204/POU2F2 signaling pathway.Methods:In vivo experiment: C57BL/6 mice were divided into young control group(4 months old) and aging model group(18 months old) based on body weight. The expression levels of AW112010, miR-204-5p, POU2F2, aging related indicators(p16, p21), and insulin signaling pathway genes [insulin receptor(INSR), insulin receptor substrate 1(IRS1), phosphatidylinositol kinase(PI3K), protein kinase B(AKT)] in epididymal adipose tissue were detected using real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR(RT-qPCR) and Western blotting. In vitro experiment: Using adriamycin(ADR) to induce 3T3-L1 aging adipocyte model, β-gal staining was used to observe cellular senescence, and miR-204 inhibitor and miR-204 mimic small interfering RNA were successfully constructed and transfected into 3T3-L1 adipocytes. Results:RT-qPCR and Western blot results showed that compared with the young group, the expression of AW112010 in the adipose tissue of aging mice was increased, while the expression of miR-204-5p was decreased. The expressions of POU2F2, p16, and p21 in the adipose tissue of aging mice were increased, while the expressions of INSR, IRS1, PI3K, GLUT4 mRNA and protein were decreased. The β-gal stainging results showed that the number of 3T3-L1 senescent adipocytes induced by ADR was significantly increased, and the expression levels of AW112010, POU2F2, p16, and p21 in ADR-induced senescent adipocytes were increased compared with the control group, while the expression levels of miR-204-5p, INSR, IRS1, PI3K, GLUT4 were decreased, and remaining glucose in the culture medium was increased. Compared with control, overexpression of miR-204 resulted in decreased expressions of aging indicators p16, p21, and target gene POU2F2 while the expressions of INSR and GLUT4 were increased.Conclusion:Upregulation of lncRNA AW112010 in adipocytes of aging mice may induce insulin resistance by targeting miR-204-5p/POU2F2/IRS1.

Uric acid (UA), the final product of human purine metabolism, can cause hyperuricemia (HUA) when excessively accumulated. HUA is closely linked to chronic kidney diseases (CKD) and is considered an independent risk factor. Hyperuricemic nephropathy, a form of CKD induced by HUA, has seen significant advances in understanding through research into the pathogenic roles of uric acid and the development of HUA animal models. Although progress has been made in understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms by which UA induces CKD, much remains to be learned about its pathological molecular mechanisms. New approaches in animal modeling or the selection of model animals may potentially lead to significant breakthroughs in research on hyperuricemia as well as related CKD. This paper reviews the research progress on the molecular mechanisms of hyperuricemic nephropathy, focusing on oxidative stress, inflammation, autophagy, fibrosis, and gut microbiota. Oxidative stress is induced by uric acid intracellularly through xanthine oxidase, NADPH oxidases, and mitochondria, leading to cellular damage. In terms of inflammation, uric acid crystals can activate the NLRP3 inflammasome, triggering an inflammatory cascade. The role of free uric acid as a pro-inflammatory agent, however, remains controversial. Depending on the study conducted, autophagy has been found to either alleviate or exacerbate inflammation induced by uric acid. Fibrosis, particularly through epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), is a major mechanism by which uric acid causes glomerulosclerosis and tubulointerstitial fibrosis. Extensive research has explored various signaling pathways involved in uric acid-induced EMT. Beneficial gut microbiota protect the kidneys by synthesizing short-chain fatty acids, reducing urea’s enterohepatic circulation, and decreasing uric acid production. This paper aims to enhance understanding of the complex relationships between HUA and CKD, serving as a reference for further research and new drug development.

This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively compare 34 global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） health systems guidance documents （HSGs） and 6 World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs. The comparison involved topic， participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability， with the aim of exploring the characteristics of emergency HSGs. The results showed that the emergency HSGs had an overall average score of 49%， with topic having the highest score， recommendations having the second highest score， and participants having the lowest score. The standard HSGs had an overall average score of 79%， with high scores in all items. The emergency HSGs had lower scores in participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability than the standard HSGs （P<0.001）， while the COVID-19 emergency HSGs developed by the WHO had higher score in topic than the standard HSGs （P<0.05）. Compared with those released by countries， the COVID-19 emergency HSG developed by the WHO showed superiority in all items and overall scores （P=0.000 2）. This indicates that emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， place equal emphasis on topic and recommendations as standard HSGs but have low requirements in terms of expert participation， evidence support， and comprehensive consideration in the time- and resource-limited context. They have the characteristics of prominent topics， clear purposes， orientation to demand， keeping up with the latest evidence， flexible adjustment， and timeliness， emphasizing immediate implementation effects， weakening long-term effects， and focusing on comprehensive benefits. Additionally， developers， types， and report completeness are important influencing factors.

The scientific rigor and efficacy of methodologies employed in drafting emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs） are paramount in guaranteeing the quality， reliability， and applicability of HSGs. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation- Health Systems （AGREE-HS）， we demonstratively assessed both global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs to uncover the core attributes of methods employed in the development of emergency HSGs. Our evaluation findings revealed that across the five assessment items of AGREE-HS， methods in the 34 emergency HSGs evaluated ranked third， trailing behind topic and recommendations. Notably， criterion 2 （the best available and most contextually relevant evidence is considered） received the highest score， whereas criterion 5 （evidence of cost and cost-effectiveness of the potential options is described） scored the lowest. Compared with the WHO standard HSGs， the COVID-19 emergency HSGs exhibited low scores in methods （P<0.05）， which was reflected in nine criteria （P<0.05）， especially in criteria 1 （systematic and transparent methods are used to identify and review the evidence） and 9 （systematic and transparent methods are used to agree upon the final recommendations）. Among the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， that developed by the WHO achieved higher scores in eight out of all nine criteria， excluding criterion 8 （P<0.05）. The clinically relevant emergency HSGs had higher scores in the criteria 3 （the evidence base is current） and 8 （the rationale behind the recommendations is clear） than other types of emergency HSGs. Collectively， the methodology for developing emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， underscores evidence orientation and integrates expert consensus. It is characterized by adaptable evidence synthesis strategies， streamlined evidence review protocols， and contextual relevance， all of which are influenced by external， internal， and implementation-specific factors.

The formulation method of emergency health systems guidance （HSG） is crucial， directly impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of responses in emergencies. A scientifically sound， systematic， and easily executable guidance document can assist health institutions at all levels in quickly coordinating resources， standardizing emergency response processes， and safeguarding public health. This study employed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to analyze the characteristics of participants in developing emergency HSGs represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG. The results showed that in the 34 HSGs included in this study， the item participants received the lowest score. Within this item， criterion 1 （diversity of development group） scored the highest （3.13±1.55）， while criterion 5 （prevention of funding agency influence） scored the lowest （1.21±0.47）. There were differences （P<0.05） in measures taken to mitigate funding agency influence between the six standard HSGs developed by the World Health Organization （WHO） and the four emergency HSGs. Additionally， differences （P<0.05） existed in the development group members， background， conflicts of interest， and preventive measures between the six WHO standard HSGs and the 34 emergency HSGs， as well as between the HSGs developed by the WHO and those developed by countries. The participants in developing emergency HSGs were influenced by various factors， including limited time for guideline development， modes of participation， scarce evidence， and uncertainties in expected outcomes. There is a need to downplay extensive requirements concerning the composition of group members， institutional diversity， and conflicts of interest， emphasizing the roles of key participants like government officials and professionals who can provide rapid， practical guidance in emergency situations.

Recommendations， consensus-based syntheses of the best available evidence， constitute the core content of a guideline. This paper analyzes the characteristics of emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs）， represented by the coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSG， regarding the item "recommendations" and its eight evaluation criteria in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems （AGREE-HS）. The World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs were used as reference to explore the characteristics of emergency HSGs that are different from non-emergency HSGs. The results showed that the “recommendations” scored second after “topic” among the five items. Criterion 7 relating to operability scored higher than others among the eight criteria， and criterion 3 dealing with ethical principles scored lower than other criteria. Compared with the standard HSGs， the emergency HSGs showed decreased scores （P<0.05） of the item recommendations and the criteria of this item except criterion 4 concerning equity promotion. Among the HSGs with different developers， those developed by the WHO had higher （P<0.05） scores of recommendations than nationally developed HSGs， as evidenced by criterion 4， criterion 5 involving acceptability to and alignment with sociocultural and political interests， and criterion 8 for updating plans. The HSGs regarding global or country strategy scored higher （P<0.05） on criterion 2 relating to comprehensiveness than those involving specific guidance on clinical or material issues. Overall， the emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， differ from the standard HSGs in a number of ways in terms of their recommendations. Emergency HSGs have more condensed content and weaker articulation of expected outcomes. They incline to put more emphasis on updating plans， rather than comprehensiveness or integrative requirements in terms of ethics， equity， and sociocultural and political interests.

The clear definition of the topic in emergency health systems guidance （HSG） ensures the relevance， scientific rigor， and practicality of the guidance， providing a clear direction and a framework for a rapid and effective public health response. This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively evaluate the global COVID-19 emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs， aiming to explore the characteristics of topic in emergency HSGs. The results showed that in the 34 HSGs included， the item topic received the highest score. Specifically， criterion 4 relating to relevant and applicable factors scored the highest （5.59）， while criterion 3 concerning the prioritization of health system challenges scored the lowest （2.76）. There were differences （P<0.05） in criterion 1 between standard HSGs and overall emergency HSGs， as well as between WHO and national emergency HSGs. Criterion 3 also showed differences （P<0.05） between standard HSGs and emergency HSGs， as well as between WHO and national emergency HSGs. Criterion 4 displayed differences （P<0.000 1） between WHO and national emergency HSGs. No differences were observed in intra-group or inter-group comparisons of different emergency HSG subcategories （P<0.05）. Overall， emergency HSGs represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG focus on detailing the challenges faced by the health system， including the natures of challenges， affected populations， and other relevant and applicable factors， while aligning with stakeholder concerns. The prioritization is downplayed， with emphasis placed on rapid responses to and flexible handling of urgent issues. Influenced by factors such as the evidence base， phase timing， and effectiveness， the topic setting shows variations.

Guidance implementation acts as a bridge between theory and practice，enabling the rapid expansion of their impact and application. This study demonstratively evaluated emergency health systems guidance documents （HSG），represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG，based on the item implementability of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS），aiming to explore the characteristics of implementability in emergency HSG. The evaluation results indicated that the COVID-19 emergency HSG had a low mean score in implementability，which ranked just above the item participants. Criterion 2 （costs and resource considerations for implementing the recommendations） received the highest mean score of 4.29，while criterion 9 （systematic evaluation of implementation） received the lowest mean score of 1.34. The emergency HSG formulated by the World Health Organization（WHO） and those formulated by various countries showed no difference （P=0.114） in criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） but had differences （P<0.05） regarding the average item scores and the scores of the remaining criteria. The WHO standard HSG had high overall scores and had differences （P<0.05） in both the mean item scores and the scores of the nine criteria when compared with the emergency HSG. The global/national HSG showed differences in scores of criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） compared with the both clinically relevant HSG and material support HSG （P<0.05）. Emergency HSG prioritized considerations of implementation costs，resources，and flexibility in terms of implementability，while de-emphasizing aspects such as stakeholder opinions，dissemination strategies，and evaluation of HSG. This may be attributed to the context in which emergency HSG are formulated，given the inherent flexibility and variability of emergency health events. The developers should comprehensively consider the needs and characteristics related to the implementability of emergency HSG during the formulation process.

Objective To observe the effects of different ligation sites and fasting method on a C57BL/6J mouse model of partial bile duct ligation(pBDL)-induced cholestasis,to establish a pBDL modeling method with a high modeling rate,typical symptoms,and good stability.Methods C57BL/6J mice were subjected to selective ligation of the left hepatic bile duct(L-pBDL)and left-to-median bile duct junction ligation(ML-pBDL)for modeling,and the effects of different pBDL ligation method on serum alanine aminotransferase,aspartate aminotransferase,alkaline phosphatase(ALP),total bilirubin,total bile acid,and liver histopathology were observed.The effects of different fasting method on symptoms and liver injury in the ML-pBDL model were also observed after fasting for 12 and 16 h before surgery,and for 4 h after surgery.Results(1)The incidence of jaundice in the ML-pBDL group was 52.94%and the survival rate within 3 weeks after surgery was 64.71%,while the incidence of jaundice in the L-pBDL group was 11.76%and the survival rate within 3 weeks after surgery was 82.35%.Compared with those in the sham surgery group,serum liver function indicators were significantly increased in the L-pBDL and ML-pBDL groups(P＜0.01),and ALP activity was significantly higher in the ML-pBDL group than in the L-pBDL group(P＜0.05).Compared with mice in the L-pBDL group,mice in the ML-pBDL group had more severe liver fibrosis at 3 weeks post-surgery(P＜0.01).(2)In addition,the incidence of jaundice in the 16 h fasting group was 93.33%and the survival rate within 3 weeks after surgery was 73.77%,while the incidence of jaundice in the 12 h fasting group was 42.86%and the survival rate within 3 weeks after surgery was 71.42%.Compared with those in the normal group,ALP activity,alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase ratio,total bile acid level,and proportion of collagen fiber area were all significantly increased in the 16 h and 12 h fasting groups(P＜0.05).Although the observed indicators were higher in the 16 h fasting group compared with those in the 12 h fasting group,the difference was not significant(P＞0.05).Mice in the 12 h and 16 h fasting groups both showed significant bile duct hyperplasia and liver fibrosis(P＜0.01),with more severe liver fibrosis in the 16 h fasting group(P＜0.01).Conclusions Both L-pBDL and ML-pBDL ligation method can be used to establish a mouse model of cholestasis;however,symptoms in the L-pBDL model only exhibit transient damage characteristics,while the liver lesions in the ML-pBDL model are typical and stable.Prolonging the preoperative fasting time can improve the modeling rate and stability of the ML-pBDL model and produce more-typical pathological symptoms.

N 6-methyladenosine (m 6A) modification can regulate gene expression by influencing RNA stability, nuclear transport, translation efficiency, alternative splicing and degradation. Current studies have shown that m 6A modification is associated with multiple biological behaviors of melanoma, such as proliferation, metastasis and resistance to immunotherapy, but specific mechanisms still need further study. This review summarizes the regulation of m 6A RNA methylation, and its related biological behaviors and mechanisms of action in melanoma.