Glucokinase Regulatory Protein genetic variant interacts with omega-3 PUFA to influence insulin resistance and inflammation in metabolic syndrome

Glucokinase Regulatory Protein (GCKR) plays a central role regulating both hepatic triglyceride and glucose metabolism. Fatty acids are key metabolic regulators, which interact with genetic factors and influence glucose metabolism and other metabolic traits. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFA) have been of considerable interest, due to their potential to reduce metabolic syndrome (MetS) risk. Objective To examine whether genetic variability at the GCKR gene locus was associated with the degree of insulin resistance, plasma concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP) and n-3 PUFA in MetS subjects. Design Homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), HOMA-B, plasma concentrations of C-peptide, CRP, fatty acid composition and the GCKR rs1260326-P446L polymorphism, were determined in a cross-sectional analysis of 379 subjects with MetS participating in the LIPGENE dietary cohort. Results Among subjects with n-3 PUFA levels below the population median, carriers of the common C/C genotype had higher plasma concentrations of fasting insulin (P = 0.019), C-peptide (P = 0.004), HOMA-IR (P = 0.008) and CRP (P = 0.032) as compared with subjects carrying the minor T-allele (Leu446). In contrast, homozygous C/C carriers with n-3 PUFA levels above the median showed lower plasma concentrations of fasting insulin, peptide C, HOMA-IR and CRP, as compared with individuals with the T-allele. Conclusions We have demonstrated a significant interaction between the GCKR rs1260326-P446L polymorphism and plasma n-3 PUFA levels modulating insulin resistance and inflammatory markers in MetS subjects. Further studies are needed to confirm this gene-diet interaction in the general population and whether targeted dietary recommendations can prevent MetS in genetically susceptible individuals.

British railways and the challenge from road haulage: 1919-39

Interwar Britain witnessed the rapid rise of road transport as a serious competitor to the railways. This article examines road–rail competition for freight traffic. It demonstrates that, contrary to previous accounts—which have been highly critical of the railway companies—their failure to prevent rapid loss of traffic to the roads was the inevitable consequence of the regulatory framework under which the railways had been returned to private control in 1921. Given the constraints imposed by this framework, price competition with road hauliers would have further depressed railway company profits. Railway policy thus concentrated on pressing for a revision of the legislative framework governing road–rail competition.

Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture

Food security is one of this century’s key global challenges. By 2050 the world will require increased crop production in order to feed its predicted 9 billion people. This must be done in the face of changing consumption patterns, the impacts of climate change and the growing scarcity of water and land. Crop production methods will also have to sustain the environment, preserve natural resources and support livelihoods of farmers and rural populations around the world. There is a pressing need for the ‘sustainable intensifi cation’ of global agriculture in which yields are increased without adverse environmental impact and without the cultivation of more land. Addressing the need to secure a food supply for the whole world requires an urgent international effort with a clear sense of long-term challenges and possibilities. Biological science, especially publicly funded science, must play a vital role in the sustainable intensifi cation of food crop production. The UK has a responsibility and the capacity to take a leading role in providing a range of scientifi c solutions to mitigate potential food shortages. This will require signifi cant funding of cross-disciplinary science for food security. The constraints on food crop production are well understood, but differ widely across regions. The availability of water and good soils are major limiting factors. Signifi cant losses in crop yields occur due to pests, diseases and weed competition. The effects of climate change will further exacerbate the stresses on crop plants, potentially leading to dramatic yield reductions. Maintaining and enhancing the diversity of crop genetic resources is vital to facilitate crop breeding and thereby enhance the resilience of food crop production. Addressing these constraints requires technologies and approaches that are underpinned by good science. Some of these technologies build on existing knowledge, while others are completely radical approaches, drawing on genomics and high-throughput analysis. Novel research methods have the potential to contribute to food crop production through both genetic improvement of crops and new crop and soil management practices. Genetic improvements to crops can occur through breeding or genetic modifi cation to introduce a range of desirable traits. The application of genetic methods has the potential to refi ne existing crops and provide incremental improvements. These methods also have the potential to introduce radical and highly signifi cant improvements to crops by increasing photosynthetic effi ciency, reducing the need for nitrogen or other fertilisers and unlocking some of the unrealised potential of crop genomes. The science of crop management and agricultural practice also needs to be given particular emphasis as part of a food security grand challenge. These approaches can address key constraints in existing crop varieties and can be applied widely. Current approaches to maximising production within agricultural systems are unsustainable; new methodologies that utilise all elements of the agricultural system are needed, including better soil management and enhancement and exploitation of populations of benefi cial soil microbes. Agronomy, soil science and agroecology—the relevant sciences—have been neglected in recent years. Past debates about the use of new technologies for agriculture have tended to adopt an either/or approach, emphasising the merits of particular agricultural systems or technological approaches and the downsides of others. This has been seen most obviously with respect to genetically modifi ed (GM) crops, the use of pesticides and the arguments for and against organic modes of production. These debates have failed to acknowledge that there is no technological panacea for the global challenge of sustainable and secure global food production. There will always be trade-offs and local complexities. This report considers both new crop varieties and appropriate agroecological crop and soil management practices and adopts an inclusive approach. No techniques or technologies should be ruled out. Global agriculture demands a diversity of approaches, specific to crops, localities, cultures and other circumstances. Such diversity demands that the breadth of relevant scientific enquiry is equally diverse, and that science needs to be combined with social, economic and political perspectives. In addition to supporting high-quality science, the UK needs to maintain and build its capacity to innovate, in collaboration with international and national research centres. UK scientists and agronomists have in the past played a leading role in disciplines relevant to agriculture, but training in agricultural sciences and related topics has recently suffered from a lack of policy attention and support. Agricultural extension services, connecting farmers with new innovations, have been similarly neglected in the UK and elsewhere. There is a major need to review the support for and provision of extension services, particularly in developing countries. The governance of innovation for agriculture needs to maximise opportunities for increasing production, while at the same time protecting societies, economies and the environment from negative side effects. Regulatory systems need to improve their assessment of benefits. Horizon scanning will ensure proactive consideration of technological options by governments. Assessment of benefi ts, risks and uncertainties should be seen broadly, and should include the wider impacts of new technologies and practices on economies and societies. Public and stakeholder dialogue—with NGOs, scientists and farmers in particular—needs to be a part of all governance frameworks.

Public policy and foreign-based enterprises in Britain prior to the Second World War

This article examines the early evolution of British policy, prior to the Second World War. The British government adopted an ‘open’ policy towards foreign direct investment (FDI), despite periodic fears that some foreign acquisitions of UK firms in key sectors might be detrimental to the national interest, and a few ad hoc attempts to deal with particular instances of this kind. During the 1930s, when the inflow of foreign firms accelerated following Britain's adoption of general tariff protection, the government developed a sophisticated admissions policy, based on an assessment of the likely net benefit of each applicant to the British economy. Its limited regulatory powers were used to maximize the potential of immigrant firms for technology transfer, enhanced competition, industrial diversification, and employment creation (particularly in the depressed regions), while protecting British industries suffering from excess capacity.

Firm size and competition: a comparison of the housebuilding industries in Australia, the UK and the USA

Housebuilding is frequently viewed as an industry full of small firms. However, large firms exist in many countries. Here, a comparative analysis is made of the housebuilding industries in Australia, Britain and the USA. Housebuilding output is found to be much higher in Australia and the USA than in Britain when measured on a per capita basis. At the same time, the degree of market concentration in Australia and the USA is relatively low but in Britain it is far greater, with a few firms having quite substantial market shares. Investigation of the size distribution of the top 100 or so firms ranked by output also shows that the decline in firm size from the largest downwards is more rapid in Britain than elsewhere. The exceptionalism of the British case is put down to two principal reasons. First, the close proximity of Britain’s regions enables housebuilders to diversify successfully across different markets. The gains from such diversification are best achieved by large firms, because they can gain scale benefits in any particular market segment. Second, land shortages induced by a restrictive planning system encourage firms to takeover each other as a quick and beneficial means of acquiring land. The institutional rules of planning also make it difficult for new entrants to come in at the bottom end of the size hierarchy. In this way, concentration grows and a handful of large producers emerge. These conditions do not hold in the other two countries, so their industries are less concentrated. Given the degree of rivalry between firms over land purchases and takeovers, it is difficult to envisage them behaving in a long-term collusive manner, so that competition in British housebuilding is probably not unduly compromised by the exceptional degree of firm concentration. Reforms to lower the restrictions, improve the slow responsiveness and reduce the uncertainties associated with British planning systems’ role in housing supply are likely to greatly improve the ability of new firms to enter housebuilding and all firms’ abilities to increase output in response to rising housing demand. Such reforms would also probably lower overall housebuilding firm concentration over time.