Changes in biomechanical properties of the coronary artery wall contribute to maintained contractile responses to endothelin-1 in atherosclerosis.

AIMS: Our aim was to determine whether alterations in biomechanical properties of human diseased compared to normal coronary artery contribute to changes in artery responsiveness to endothelin-1 in atherosclerosis. MAIN METHODS: Concentration-response curves were constructed to endothelin-1 in normal and diseased coronary artery. The passive mechanical properties of arteries were determined using tensile ring tests from which finite element models of passive mechanical properties of both groups were created. Finite element modelling of artery endothelin-1 responses was then performed. KEY FINDINGS: Maximum responses to endothelin-1 were significantly attenuated in diseased (27±3 mN, n=55) compared to normal (38±2 mN, n=68) artery, although this remained over 70% of control. There was no difference in potency (pD2 control=8.03±0.06; pD2 diseased=7.98±0.06). Finite element modelling of tensile ring tests resulted in hyperelastic shear modulus μ=2004±410 Pa and hardening exponent α=22.8±2.2 for normal wall and μ=2464±1075 Pa and α=38.3±6.7 for plaque tissue and distensibility of diseased vessels was decreased. Finite element modelling of active properties of both groups resulted in higher muscle contractile strain (represented by thermal reactivity) of the atherosclerotic artery model than the normal artery model. The models suggest that a change in muscle response to endothelin-1 occurs in atherosclerotic artery to increase its distensibility towards that seen in normal artery. SIGNIFICANCE: Our data suggest that an adaptation occurs in medial smooth muscle of atherosclerotic coronary artery to maintain distensibility of the vessel wall in the presence of endothelin-1. This may contribute to the vasospastic effect of locally increased endothelin-1 production that is reported in this condition.

The adoption of sustainable remediation behaviour in the US and UK: a cross country comparison and determinant analysis.

The sustainable remediation concept, aimed at maximizing the net environmental, social, and economic benefits in contaminated site remediation, is being increasingly recognized by industry, governments, and academia. However, there is limited understanding of actual sustainable behaviour being adopted and the determinants of such sustainable behaviour. The present study identified 27 sustainable practices in remediation. An online questionnaire survey was used to rank and compare them in the US (n=112) and the UK (n=54). The study also rated ten promoting factors, nine barriers, and 17 types of stakeholders' influences. Subsequently, factor analysis and general linear models were used to determine the effects of internal characteristics (i.e. country, organizational characteristics, professional role, personal experience and belief) and external forces (i.e. promoting factors, barriers, and stakeholder influences). It was found that US and UK practitioners adopted many sustainable practices to similar extents. Both US and UK practitioners perceived the most effectively adopted sustainable practices to be reducing the risk to site workers, protecting groundwater and surface water, and reducing the risk to the local community. Comparing the two countries, we found that the US adopted innovative in-situ remediation more effectively; while the UK adopted reuse, recycling, and minimizing material usage more effectively. As for the overall determinants of sustainable remediation, the country of origin was found not to be a significant determinant. Instead, organizational policy was found to be the most important internal characteristic. It had a significant positive effect on reducing distant environmental impact, sustainable resource usage, and reducing remediation cost and time (p<0.01). Customer competitive pressure was found to be the most extensively significant external force. In comparison, perceived stakeholder influence, especially that of primary stakeholders (site owner, regulator, and primary consultant), did not appear to have as extensive a correlation with the adoption of sustainability as one would expect.