From social to political. New forms of mobilization and democratization. Conference proceedings

In the recent evolution of contemporary social movements three phases can be identified. The first phase is marked by the labour movement and the systemic importance attributed to the labour conflict in industrial societies. This conflict has been interpreted as a consequence of the shortcoming of social integration mechanisms by Emile Durkheim, as a rational conflict by entrepreneurs’ and workers’ interests by Max Wener, and as a central class struggle for the transformation of society by Karl Marx. The second phase in this development was led by the new social movements of the post-industrial society of the 1960s and 1970s’ students, women and environmentalist movements. Two new analytical perspectives have explained these movements’ meaning and actions. Resource mobilization theory (McAdam and Tilly) has focuses on rational attitudes and conflicts. Actionalist sociology, in turn, has identified the new protagonists of social conflicts that replaced the labour movement in postindustrial societies. The third phase emerges in a world characterized by the ascendance of markets, the increasingly prominent role of financial capital flows, the closure of communities, and fundamentalism. In this context, human rights and pro-democratization movements constitute alternatives to global domination and the systemic conditioning of individual and groups.

Advantages and Versatility of Fluorescence-Based Methodology to Characterize the Functionality of LDLR and Class Mutation Assignment

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a common autosomal codominant disease with a frequency of 1:500 individuals in its heterozygous form. The genetic basis of FH is most commonly mutations within the LDLR gene. Assessing the pathogenicity of LDLR variants is particularly important to give a patient a definitive diagnosis of FH. Current studies of LDLR activity ex vivo are based on the analysis of I-125-labeled lipoproteins (reference method) or fluorescent-labelled LDL. The main purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of these two methods to assess LDLR functionality in order to validate a functional assay to analyse LDLR mutations. LDLR activity of different variants has been studied by flow cytometry using FITC-labelled LDL and compared with studies performed previously with I-125-labeled lipoproteins. Flow cytometry results are in full agreement with the data obtained by the I-125 methodology. Additionally confocal microscopy allowed the assignment of different class mutation to the variants assayed. Use of fluorescence yielded similar results than I-125-labeled lipoproteins concerning LDLR activity determination, and also allows class mutation classification. The use of FITC-labelled LDL is easier in handling and disposal, cheaper than radioactivity and can be routinely performed by any group doing LDLR functional validations.