Tubular Urinary Enzymes in Acute Post-infectious Glomerulonephritis

Tubular function of 17 pediatric patients with a mild form of acute post-infectious glomerulonephritis was prospectively evaluated by assessment of the urinary activity of proximal and distal tubule enzymes. Neutral-like endopeptidase (NEP-like) and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) were the proximal tubule enzymes assessed, while prolyl-endopeptidase (PE) and serine-endopeptidase H1 and H2 were the distal tubule enzymes analyzed. Urine was collected at diagnosis (T0) and after 2 (T2) and 6 (T6) months of follow-up. NEP-like enzyme activity (nmol/mg creatinine; median±quartile range) was increased at diagnosis, and this remained stable during the first 6 months (T0 18.30±83.26, T2 17.32±49.56, T6 23.38±107.18). Urinary activity of the other enzymes was as follows: ACE (mU/ml per mg creatinine) T0 0.08±0.16, T2 0.06±0.10, T6 0.18±0.29; PE (nmol/mg creatinine) T0 6.70±84.87, T2 9.55±69.00, T6 13.67±28.70; serine-endopeptidase H1 (nmol/mg creatinine) T0 7.86±26.95, T2 17.17±59.37, T6 18.19± 79.14; and serine-thiol-endopeptidase H2 (nmol/mg creatinine) T0 3.06±21.97, T2 12.06±32.42, T6 16.22± 44.06. Thirty other healthy children matched for age and gender were considered as a control group. This group was assessed once and the results were: NEP-like activity 6.05±10.54, ACE 0.11±0.22, PE 7.10±13.36, H1 5.00±17.30, and H2 6.00±20.16. In conclusion, we observed that NEP-like and H1 enzymes exhibited significant increased urinary activity 6 months after the diagnosis. This increase occurred in spite of the disappearance of clinical symptoms, which occurred 2 months after the diagnosis. We believe that the increase in urinary enzymatic activity could be a manifestation of a silent tubular dysfunction following an episode of acute post-infectious glomerulonephritis.

Dis)located Olympic Patriots: Sporting Connections, Administrative Communications and Imperial Ether in Interwar New Zealand

During the interwar period (1919-1939) protagonists of the early New Zealand Olympic Committee [NZOC] worked to renegotiate and improve the country’s international sporting participation and involvement in the International Olympic Committee [IOC]. To this end, NZOC effectively used its locally based administrators and well-placed expatriates in Britain to variously assert the organisation’s nascent autonomy, independence and political power, progress Antipodean athlete’s causes, and, counter any potential doubt about the nation’s peripheral position in imperial sporting dialogues. Adding to the corpus of scholarship on New Zealand’s ties and tribulations with imperial Britain (in and beyond sport) (e.g. Beilharz and Cox 2007; Belich 2001, 2007; Coombes 2006; MacLean 2010; Phillips 1984, 1987; Ryan 2004, 2005, 2007), in this paper I examine how the political actions and strategic location of three key NZOC agents (specifically, administrator Harry Amos and expatriates Arthur Porritt and Jack Lovelock) worked in their own particular ways to assert the position of the organisation within the global Olympic fraternity. I argue that the efforts of Amos, Porritt and Lovelock also concomitantly served to remind Commonwealth sporting colleagues (namely Britain and Australia) that New Zealand could not be characterised as, or relegated to being, a distal, subdued, or subservient colonial sporting partner. Subsequently I contend that NZOC’s development during the interwar period, and particularly the utility of expatriate agents, can be contextualised against historiographical shifts that encourage us to rethink, reimagine, and rework narratives of empire, colonisation, national identity, commonwealth and belonging.

(Dis)located Olympic Patriots: Sporting Connections, Administrative Communications and Imperial Ether in Interwar New Zealand

During the interwar period (1919–1939), protagonists of the early New Zealand Olympic Committee (NZOC) worked to renegotiate and improve the country's international sporting participation and involvement in the International Olympic Committee. To this end, NZOC effectively used its locally based administrators and well-placed expatriates in Britain to variously assert the organization's nascent autonomy, independence and political power, progress Antipodean athlete's causes and counter any potential doubt about the nation's peripheral position in imperial sporting dialogues. Adding to the corpus of scholarship on New Zealand's ties and tribulations with imperial Britain, both in and beyond sport (e.g. Beilharz and Cox, 2007, “Settler Capitalism Revisited,” Thesis Eleven 88: 112–124; Belich, 2001, Paradise Reforged: A History of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the Year 2000, Auckland: Allen Lane; Belich, 2007, Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders from Polynesian Settlement to the End of the Nineteenth Century, Auckland: The Penguin Group; Coombes, 2006, Rethinking Settler Colonialism: History and Memory in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand and South Africa, Manchester: Manchester University Press; MacLean, 2010, “New Zealand (Aotearoa),” In Routledge Companion to Sports History, edited by Steve W. Pope and John Nauright, 510–525, London: Routledge; Phillips, 1984, “Rugby, War and the Mythology of the New Zealand Male,” The New Zealand Journal of History 18 (1): 83–103; Phillips, 1987, A Man's Country: The Image of the Pakeha Male, Auckland: Penguin Books; Ryan, 2004, The Making of New Zealand Cricket, 1832–1914, London: Frank Cass; Ryan, 2005, Tackling Rugby Myths: Rugby and New Zealand Society 1854–2004, Dunedin: University of Otago Press; Ryan, 2007, “Sport in 19th-Century Aotearoa/New Zealand: Opportunities and Constraints,” In Sport in Aotearoa/New Zealand Society, edited by Chris Collins and Steve Jackson, 96–111, Auckland: Thomson), I will examine how the political actions and strategic location of three key NZOC agents (specifically, administrator Harry Amos and expatriates Arthur Porritt and Jack Lovelock) worked in their own particular ways to assert the position of the organization within the global Olympic fraternity. I argue that the efforts of Amos, Porritt and Lovelock also concomitantly served to remind Commonwealth sporting colleagues (namely Britain and Australia) that New Zealand could not be characterized as, or relegated to being, a distal, subdued or subservient colonial sporting partner. Subsequently, I contend that NZOC's development during the interwar period, and particularly the utility of expatriate agents, can be contextualized against historiographical shifts that encourage us to rethink, reimagine and rework narratives of empire, colonization, national identity, commonwealth and belonging.