Bladder cancer is one of the most common urogenital malignancies. However, its pathogenesis, especially molecular mechanisms remain elusive. Thus, understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying bladder cancer is important for the discovery of novel therapeutic paradigms for these diseases. In current study, we found that micro‐RNA (miR)‐190b is highly expressed in bladder cancer tissues and cells. Overexpression of miR‐190b enhanced the proliferation, growth, migration and invasion capabilities, and angiogenesis of bladder cancer cells, whereas downregulation of miR‐190b reversed these effects. Target prediction and dual luciferase reporter assays identified NLR family CARD domain containing 3 (NLRC3) as a potential target of miR‐190b. Pathway analysis indicated that miR‐190b promotes bladder cancer progression via the Wnt/β‐catenin and mTOR signaling pathways. Taken together, our findings imply that miR‐190b acts as a critical regulator for bladder cancer development by repressing NLRC3 and partly through the Wnt/β‐catenin and mTOR pathways. Our study suggests that miR‐190b may be served as a potential therapeutic target for bladder cancer treatment.

When automating tasks using some form of artificial intelligence, some inaccuracy in the result is virtually unavoidable. In many cases, the user must decide whether to try the automated method again, or fix it themselves using the available user interface. We argue this decision is influenced by both perceived automation accuracy and degree of task "controllability" (how easily and to what extent an automated result can be manually modified). This relationship between accuracy and controllability is investigated in a 750-participant crowdsourced experiment using a controlled, gamified task. With high controllability, self-reported satisfaction remained constant even under very low accuracy conditions, and overall, a strong preference was observed for using manual control rather than automation, despite much slower performance and regardless of very poor controllability.

In the title compound, [Mn(C14H8O6S)(C10H8N2)]n, the MnII ion is coordinated by four O atoms from three 4,4′-sulfonyl­dibenzoate (sdba) ligands and two N atoms from one 2,2′-bipyridine (2,2′-bipy) ligand in a distorted octa­hedral geometry. The manganese atoms are alternately bridged either by two sdba ligands, with an Mn⋯Mn separation of 12.284 (1) Å, or by two carboxyl­ate groups from two sdba ligands, with an Mn⋯Mn separation of 4.064 (1) Å, thus producing polymeric chains propagated in [101]. Weak inter­molecular C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds and π–π inter­actions [centroid–centroid distance of 3.730 (3) Å between the aromatic rings of neighbouring polymeric chains] further stabilize the crystal packing.

In the title compound, [Zn(C14H17N5O3)(C9H4O6)(H2O)2]·H2O, the complex mol­ecule exists in a zwitterionic form. The ZnII ion exhibits a distorted tetra­gonal-pyramidal geometry, being coordinated by two O atoms from the zwitterionic 8-ethyl-5-oxo-2-(piperazin-4-ium-1-yl)-5,8-dihydro­pyrido[2,3-d]pyrimidine-6-carboxyl­ate (L) ligand, one O atom from the 5-carb­oxy­benzene-1,3-dicarboxyl­ate dianion, [Hbtc]2−, and two O atoms from two aqua ligands. In the crystal, N—H⋯O and O—H⋯O hydrogen bonds link the components into a three-dimensional structure. The crystal packing exhibits π–π inter­actions between the aromatic rings, with centroid–centroid distances in the range 3.466 (3)–3.667 (3) Å.