Polymorphism of SERPINE2 gene is associated with pulmonary emphysema in consecutive autopsy cases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The <it>SERPINA1</it>, <it>SERPINA3</it>, and <it>SERPINE2 </it>genes, which encode antiproteases, have been proposed to be susceptible genes for of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and related phenotypes. Whether they are associated with emphysema is not known.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twelve previously reported single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in <it>SERPINA1 </it>(rs8004738, rs17751769, rs709932, rs11832, rs1303, rs28929474, and rs17580), <it>SERPINA3 </it>(rs4934, rs17473, and rs1800463), and <it>SERPINE2 </it>(rs840088 and rs975278) were genotyped in samples obtained from 1,335 consecutive autopsies of elderly Japanese people. The association between these SNPs and the severity of emphysema, as assessed using macroscopic scores, was determined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Emphysema of more than moderate degree was detected in 189 subjects (14.1%) and showed a significant gender difference (males, 20.5% and females, 7.0%; p < 0.0001). Among the 12 examined SNPs, only rs975278 in the <it>SERPINE2 </it>gene was positively associated with emphysema. Unlike the major alleles, homozygous minor alleles of rs975278 were associated with emphysema (odds ratio (OR) = 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02-2.30; p = 0.037) and the association was very prominent in smokers (OR = 2.02; 95% CI = 1.29-3.15; p = 0.002).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p><it>SERPINE2 </it>may be a risk factor for the development of emphysema and its association with emphysema may be stronger in smokers.</p

Administrative and Judicial Collective Enforcement of Consumer Law in the US and the European Community

In the consumer society, as it stands today in Western-type democracies, consumers have a far larger choice of products and services originating from all over the world than they did decades ago. Risks associated with products and services have also increased, as have mass problems and mass damages, often in a transborder dimension. The US and the European Community, though battling against common problems, maintain different standard setting and enforcement regimes. This paper focuses on enforcement regimes, thereby distinguishing between administrative enforcement via agencies and judicial collective enforcement via European collective actions and US class actions. The existing theoretical framework depicting administrative and judicial enforcement as alternative strategies is contrasted against modern developments in the US and the EC. In the field of consumer protection administrative control and judicial collective enforcement are being understood more as functional complements than alternatives. Enforcement covers negotiation, settlement, adjudication and arbitration. The analysis of the institutional variables determining the choice between administrative and judicial control – ex ante vs. ex post control, injunctive relief versus damages, personal injuries and economic losses, sector specificity vs. general instruments to protect consumers, public agencies vs. private organisations – provide the ground for preliminary thoughts on a revised theoretical approach