Bottom-up risk regulation? How nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps challenge federal and state environmental agencies

Nanotechnologies have been called the "Next Industrial Revolution." At the same time, scientists are raising concerns about the potential health and environmental risks related to the nano-sized materials used in nanotechnologies. Analyses suggest that current U.S. federal regulatory structures are not likely to adequately address these risks in a proactive manner. Given these trends, the premise of this paper is that state and local-level agencies will likely deal with many "end-of-pipe" issues as nanomaterials enter environmental media without prior toxicity testing, federal standards, or emissions controls. In this paper we (1) briefly describe potential environmental risks and benefits related to emerging nanotechnologies; (2) outline the capacities of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act to address potential nanotechnology risks, and how risk data gaps challenge these regulations; (3) outline some of the key data gaps that challenge state-level regulatory capacities to address nanotechnologies' potential risks, using Wisconsin as a case study; and (4) discuss advantages and disadvantages of state versus federal approaches to nanotechnology risk regulation. In summary, we suggest some ways government agencies can be better prepared to address nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps and risk management.

In vivo and ex vivo regulation of visfatin production by leptin in human and murine adipose tissue: role of mitogen-activated protein kinase and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase signaling pathways

Visfatin is an adipogenic adipokine with increased levels in obesity, properties common to leptin. Thus, leptin may modulate visfatin production in adipose tissue (AT). Therefore, we investigated the effects of leptin on visfatin levels in 3T3-L1 adipocytes and human/murine AT, with or without a leptin antagonist. The potential signaling pathways and mechanisms regulating visfatin production in AT was also studied. Real-time RT-PCR and Western blotting were used to assess the relative mRNA and protein expression of visfatin. ELISA was performed to measure visfatin levels in conditioned media of AT explants, and small interfering RNA technology was used to reduce leptin receptor expression. Leptin significantly (P<0.01) increased visfatin levels in human and murine AT with a maximal response at leptin 10(-9) M, returning to baseline at leptin 10(-7) M. Importantly, ip leptin administration to C57BL/6 ob/ob mice further supported leptin-induced visfatin protein production in omental AT (P<0.05). Additionally, soluble leptin receptor levels rose with concentration dependency to a maximal response at leptin 10(-7) M (P<0.01). The use of a leptin antagonist negated the induction of visfatin and soluble leptin receptor by leptin. Furthermore, leptin-induced visfatin production was significantly decreased in the presence of MAPK and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors. Also, when the leptin eceptor gene was knocked down using small interfering RNA, eptin-induced visfatin expression was significantly decreased. Thus, leptin increases visfatin production in AT in vivo and ex vivo via pathways involving MAPK and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase signaling. The pleiotropic effects of leptin may be partially mediated by visfatin.