Involvement of PPAR-γ in the neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects of angiotensin type 1 receptor inhibition: effects of the receptor antagonist telmisartan and receptor deletion in a mouse MPTP model of Parkinson's disease

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several recent studies have shown that angiotensin type 1 receptor (AT1) antagonists such as candesartan inhibit the microglial inflammatory response and dopaminergic cell loss in animal models of Parkinson's disease. However, the mechanisms involved in the neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects of AT1 blockers in the brain have not been clarified. A number of studies have reported that AT1 blockers activate peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR γ). PPAR-γ activation inhibits inflammation, and may be responsible for neuroprotective effects, independently of AT1 blocking actions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We have investigated whether oral treatment with telmisartan (the most potent PPAR-γ activator among AT1 blockers) provides neuroprotection against dopaminergic cell death and neuroinflammation, and the possible role of PPAR-γ activation in any such neuroprotection. We used a mouse model of parkinsonism induced by the dopaminergic neurotoxin 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) and co-administration of the PPAR-γ antagonist GW9662 to study the role of PPAR-γ activation. In addition, we used AT1a-null mice lesioned with MPTP to study whether deletion of AT1 in the absence of any pharmacological effect of AT1 blockers provides neuroprotection, and investigated whether PPAR-γ activation may also be involved in any such effect of AT1 deletion by co-administration of the PPAR-γ antagonist GW9662.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We observed that telmisartan protects mouse dopaminergic neurons and inhibits the microglial response induced by administration of MPTP. The protective effects of telmisartan on dopaminergic cell death and microglial activation were inhibited by co-administration of GW9662. Dopaminergic cell death and microglial activation were significantly lower in AT1a-null mice treated with MPTP than in mice not subjected to AT1a deletion. Interestingly, the protective effects of AT1 deletion were also inhibited by co-administration of GW9662.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results suggest that telmisartan provides effective neuroprotection against dopaminergic cell death and that the neuroprotective effect is mediated by PPAR-γ activation. However, the results in AT1-deficient mice show that blockage of AT1, unrelated to the pharmacological properties of AT1 blockers, also protects against dopaminergic cell death and neuroinflammation. Furthermore, the results show that PPAR-γ activation is involved in the anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects of AT1 deletion.</p

Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for cattle stature identifies common genes that regulate body size in mammals

peer-reviewedH.D.D., A.J.C., P.J.B. and B.J.H. would like to acknowledge the Dairy Futures Cooperative Research Centre for funding. H.P. and R.F. acknowledge funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the AgroClustEr ‘Synbreed—Synergistic Plant and Animal Breeding’ (grant 0315527B). H.P., R.F., R.E. and K.-U.G. acknowledge the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Süddeutscher Rinderzüchter, the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Österreichischer Fleckviehzüchter and ZuchtData EDV Dienstleistungen for providing genotype data. A. Bagnato acknowledges the European Union (EU) Collaborative Project LowInputBreeds (grant agreement 222623) for providing Brown Swiss genotypes. Braunvieh Schweiz is acknowledged for providing Brown Swiss phenotypes. H.P. and R.F. acknowledge the German Holstein Association (DHV) and the Confederación de Asociaciones de Frisona Española (CONCAFE) for sharing genotype data. H.P. was financially supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (grant PA 2789/1-1). D.B. and D.C.P. acknowledge funding from the Research Stimulus Fund (11/S/112) and Science Foundation Ireland (14/IA/2576). M.S. and F.S.S. acknowledge the Canadian Dairy Network (CDN) for providing the Holstein genotypes. P.S. acknowledges funding from the Genome Canada project entitled ‘Whole Genome Selection through Genome Wide Imputation in Beef Cattle’ and acknowledges WestGrid and Compute/Calcul Canada for providing computing resources. J.F.T. was supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, under awards 2013-68004-20364 and 2015-67015-23183. A. Bagnato, F.P., M.D. and J.W. acknowledge EU Collaborative Project Quantomics (grant 516 agreement 222664) for providing Brown Swiss and Finnish Ayrshire sequences and genotypes. A.C.B. and R.F.V. acknowledge funding from the public–private partnership ‘Breed4Food’ (code BO-22.04-011- 001-ASG-LR) and EU FP7 IRSES SEQSEL (grant 317697). A.C.B. and R.F.V. acknowledge CRV (Arnhem, the Netherlands) for providing data on Dutch and New Zealand Holstein and Jersey bulls.Stature is affected by many polymorphisms of small effect in humans1. In contrast, variation in dogs, even within breeds, has been suggested to be largely due to variants in a small number of genes2,3. Here we use data from cattle to compare the genetic architecture of stature to those in humans and dogs. We conducted a meta-analysis for stature using 58,265 cattle from 17 populations with 25.4 million imputed whole-genome sequence variants. Results showed that the genetic architecture of stature in cattle is similar to that in humans, as the lead variants in 163 significantly associated genomic regions (P < 5 × 10−8) explained at most 13.8% of the phenotypic variance. Most of these variants were noncoding, including variants that were also expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) and in ChIP–seq peaks. There was significant overlap in loci for stature with humans and dogs, suggesting that a set of common genes regulates body size in mammals

Discursive representations of restorative justice in international policies

The European Directive 2012/29/EU, the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)8), and the recently launched updated United Nations Handbook (2020) testify to the increasing policy recognition of restorative justice at international level. And yet, despite the vast and burgeoning literature on restorative justice, limited research and critical analysis has been conducted on policies, and even less on international policies and instruments. As a result, we know little about how restorative justice is framed within policy and how such framings could contribute toward the development of this field in practice. Addressing this gap, this article seeks to understand the ways in which restorative justice is construed within international policies and their conditions of possibility, using a ‘policy-as-discourse’ analytical approach. The article also draws implications for the study of the relationships between restorative justice policy and practice and for future research on the institutionalisation of this ‘new’ frontier of penality, internationally