Association of alpha1a-adrenergic receptor polymorphism and blood pressure phenotypes in the Brazilian population

Background: The alpha1A-adrenergic receptor (alpha(1A)-AR) regulates the cardiac and peripheral vascular system through sympathetic activation. Due to its important role in the regulation of vascular tone and blood pressure, we aimed to investigate the association between the Arg347Cys polymorphism in the alpha(1A)-AR gene and blood pressure phenotypes, in a large sample of Brazilians from an urban population. Methods: A total of 1568 individuals were randomly selected from the general population of the Vitoria City metropolitan area. Genetic analysis of the Arg347Cys polymorphism was conducted by polymerase chain reaction/restriction fragment length polymorphism. We have compared cardiovascular risk variables and genotypes using ANOVA, and Chi-square test for univariate comparisons and logistic regression for multivariate comparisons. Results: Association analysis indicated a significant difference between genotype groups with respect to diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.04), but not systolic blood pressure (p = 0.12). In addition, presence of the Cys/Cys genotype was marginally associated with hypertension in our population (p = 0.06). Significant interaction effects were observed between the studied genetic variant, age and physical activity. Presence of the Cys/Cys genotype was associated with hypertension only in individuals with regular physical activity (odds ratio = 1.86; p = 0.03) or younger than 45 years (odds ratio = 1.27; p = 0.04). Conclusion: Physical activity and age may potentially play a role by disclosing the effects of the Cys allele on blood pressure. According to our data it is possible that the Arg347Cys polymorphism can be used as a biomarker to disease risk in a selected group of individuals.FAPESP (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo)[2001/03454-5

Two Concepts of Basic Equality

It has become somewhat a commonplace in recent political philosophy to remark that all plausible political theories must share at least one fundamental premise, ‘that all humans are one another's equals’. One single concept of ‘basic equality’, therefore, is cast as the common touchstone of all contemporary political thought. This paper argues that this claim is false. Virtually all do indeed say that all humans are ‘equals’ in some basic sense. However, this is not the same sense. There are not one but (at least) two concepts of basic equality, and they reflect not a grand unity within political philosophy but a deep and striking division. I call these concepts ‘Equal Worth’ and ‘Equal Authority’. The former means that each individual’s good is of equal moral worth. The latter means that no individual is under the natural authority of anyone else. Whilst these two predicates are not in themselves logically inconsistent, I demonstrate that they are inconsistent foundation stones for political theory. A theory that starts from Equal Worth will find it near impossible to justify Equal Authority. And a theory that starts from Equal Authority will find any fact about the true worth of things, including ourselves, irrelevant to justifying legitimate action. This helps us identify the origin of many of our deepest and seemingly intractable disagreements within political philosophy, and directs our attention to the need for a clear debate about the truth and/or relationship between the two concepts. In short, my call to arms can be summed up in the demand that political philosophers never again be allowed to claim ‘that all human beings are equals’ full stop. They must be clear in what dimension they claim that we are equals—Worth or Authority (or perhaps something else)