Common and rare variants of the renin-angiotensin system and their relation to antihypertensive drug responses

Most of the diseases affecting public health, like hypertension, are multifactorial by etiology. Hypertension is influenced by genetic, life style and environmental factors. Estimation of the influence of genes to the risk of essential hypertension varies from 30 to 50%. It is plausible that in most of the cases susceptibility to hypertension is determined by the action of more than one gene. Although the exact molecular mechanism underlying essential hypertension remains obscure, several monogenic forms of hypertension have been identified. Since common genetic variations may predict, not only to susceptibility to hypertension, but also response to antihypertensive drug therapy, pharmacogenetic approaches may provide useful markers in finding relations between candidate genes and phenotypes of hypertension. The aim of this study was to identify genetic mutations and polymorphisms contributing to human hypertension, and examine their relationships to intermediate phenotypes of hypertension, such as blood pressure (BP) responses to antihypertensive drugs or biochemical laboratory values. Two groups of patients were investigated in the present study. The first group was collected from the database of patients investigated in the Hypertension Outpatient Ward, Helsinki University Central Hospital, and consisted of 399 subjects considered to have essential hypertension. Frequncies of the mutant or variant alleles were compared with those in two reference groups, healthy blood donors (n = 301) and normotensive males (n = 175). The second group of subjects with hypertension was collected prospectively. The study subjects (n=313) underwent a protocol lasting eight months, including four one-month drug treatment periods with antihypertensive medications (thiazide diuretic, β-blocker, calcium channel antagonist, and an angiotensin II receptor antagonist). BP responses and laboratory values were related to polymorphims of several candidate genes of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). In addition, two patients with typical features of Liddle’s syndrome were screened for mutations in kidney epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) subunits. Two novel mutations causing Liddle’s syndrome were identified. The first mutation identified located in the beta-subunit of ENaC and the second mutation found located in the gamma-subunit, constituting the first identified Liddle mutation locating in the extracellular domain. This mutation showed 2-fold increase in channel activity in vitro. Three gene variants, of which two are novel, were identified in ENaC subunits. The prevalence of the variants was three times higher in hypertensive patients (9%) than in reference groups (3%). The variant carriers had increased daily urinary potassium excretion rate in relation to their renin levels compared with controls suggesting increased ENaC activity, although in vitro they did not show increased channel activity. Of the common polymorphisms of the RAS studied, angiotensin II receptor type I (AGTR1) 1166 A/C polymorphism was associated with modest changes in RAS activity. Thus, patients homozygous for the C allele tended to have increased aldosterone and decreased renin levels. In vitro functional studies using transfected HEK293 cells provided additional evidence that the AGTR1 1166 C allele may be associated with increased expression of the AGTR1. Common polymorphisms of the alpha-adducin and the RAS genes did not significantly predict BP responses to one-month monotherapies with hydroclorothiazide, bisoprolol, amlodipin, or losartan. In conclusion, two novel mutations of ENaC subunits causing Liddle’s syndrome were identified. In addition, three common ENaC polymorphisms were shown to be associated with occurrence of essential hypertension, but their exact functional and clinical consequences remain to be explored. The AGTR1 1166 C allele may modify the endocrine phenotype of hypertensive patients, when present in homozygous form. Certain widely studied polymorphisms of the ACE, angiotensinogen, AGTR1 and alpha-adducin genes did not significantly affect responses to a thiazide, β-blocker, calcium channel antagonist, and angiotensin II receptor antagonist.

Common past, divided memories: historical memory of the Polish minority members in Lithuania

The Master’s thesis examines historical memory of the Polish minority members in Lithuania with regard to how their interpretation of the common Polish-Lithuanian history reiterates or differs from the official Polish and Lithuanian narratives conveyed by the school textbooks. History teaching in high schools carries a crucial state-supported role of “identity building policies” – it maintains a national narrative of memory, which might be exclusive to minorities and their peculiar understanding of history. Lithuanians Poles, in this regard, represent a national minority, which is exposed to two conflicting national narratives of the common past – Polish and Lithuanian. As members of the Polish nation, their understanding of the common Polish-Lithuanian history is conditioned by the Polish historical narrative, acquired as part of the collective memory of the family and/or different minority organizations. On the other hand, they encounter Lithuanian historical narrative of the Polish-Lithuanian past throughout the secondary school history education, where the curriculum, even if taught in Polish, largely represents the Lithuanian point of view. The concept of collective memory is utilized to refer to collective representations of national memory (i.e. publicly articulated narratives and images of collective past in history textbooks) as well as to socially framed individual memories (i.e. historical memory of minority members, where individual remembering is framed by the social context of their identity). The thesis compares the official national historical narratives in Lithuania and Poland, as conveyed by the Polish and Lithuanian history textbooks. The consequent analysis of qualitative interviews with the Polish minority members in Lithuania offers insights into historical memory of Lithuanian Poles and its relation to the official Polish and Lithuanian national narratives of the common past. Qualitative content analysis is applied in both parts of the analysis. The narratives which emerge from the interview data could be broadly grouped into two segments. First, a more pronounced view on the past combines the following elements: i) emphasis on the value of multicultural and diverse past of Lithuania, ii) contestation of “Lithuanocentricity” of the Lithuanian narrative and iii) rejection of the term “occupation”, based on the cultural presuppositions – the dominant position of Polish culture and language in the Vilnius region, symbolic belonging and “Lithuanianness” of the local Poles. While the opposition to the term of “occupation” is in accord with the official Polish narrative conveyed by the textbooks, the former two elements do not neatly adhere to either Polish or Lithuanian textbook narratives. They should rather be considered as an expression of claims for inclusion of plural pasts into Lithuanian collective memory and hence as claims for symbolic enfranchisement into the Lithuanian “imagined community”. The second strand of views, on the other hand, does not exclude assertions about the historically dominant position of Polish culture in Lithuania, but at the same time places more emphasis on the political and historical continuity of the Lithuanian state and highlights a long-standing symbolic connectedness of Vilnius and Lithuania, thus, striking a middle way between the Polish and Lithuanian interpretations of the past.

Socialist Realism instead of Formalism : the Formation and Development of the Soviet Music Control System 1932-1950

Whereas it has been widely assumed in the public that the Soviet music policy system had a “top-down” structure of control and command that directly affected musical creativity, in fact my research shows that the relations between the different levels of the music policy system were vague, and the viewpoints of its representatives differed from each other. Because the representatives of the party and government organs controlling operas could not define which kind of music represented Socialist Realism, the system as it developed during the 1930s and 1940s did not function effectively enough in order to create such a centralised control of Soviet music, still less could Soviet operas fulfil the highly ambiguous aesthetics of Socialist Realism. I show that musical discussions developed as bureaucratic ritualistic arenas, where it became more important to reveal the heretical composers, making scapegoats of them, and requiring them to perform self-criticism, than to give directions on how to reach the artistic goals of Socialist Realism. When one opera was found to be unacceptable, this lead to a strengthening of control by the party leadership, which lead to more operas, one after the other, to be revealed as failures. I have studied the control of the composition, staging and reception of the opera case-studies, which remain obscure in the West despite a growing scholarly interest in them, and have created a detailed picture of the foundation and development of the Soviet music control system in 1932-1950. My detailed discussion of such case-studies as Ivan Dzerzhinskii’s The Quiet Don, Dmitrii Shostakovich’s Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk District, Vano Muradeli’s The Great Friendship, Sergei Prokofiev’s Story of a Real Man, Tikhon Khrennikov’s Frol Skobeev and Evgenii Zhukovskii’s From All One’s Heart backs with documentary precision the historically revisionist model of the development of Soviet music. In February 1948, composers belonging to the elite of the Union of Soviet Composers, e.g. Dmitri Shostakovich and Sergei Prokofiev, were accused in a Central Committee Resolution of formalism, as been under the influence of western modernism. Accusations of formalism were connected to the criticism of the conciderable financial, material and social privileges these composers enjoyed in the leadership of the Union. With my new archival findings I give a more detailed picture of the financial background for the 1948 campaign. The independent position of the music funding organization of the Union of Soviet Composers (Muzfond) to decide on its finances was an exceptional phenomenon in the Soviet Union and contradicted the strivings to strengthen the control of Soviet music. The financial audits of the Union of Soviet Composers did not, however, change the elite status of some of its composers, except for maybe a short duration in some cases. At the same time the independence of the significal financial authorities of Soviet theatres was restricted. The cuts in the governmental funding allocated to Soviet theatres contradicted the intensified ideological demands for Soviet operas.