Studies of granulosa cell maturation in dominant and subordinate bovine follicles : novel extracellular matrix focimatrix is co-ordinately regulated with cholesterol side-chain cleavage CYP11A1

During growth of antral ovarian follicles granulosa cells first become associated with a novel type of extracellular matrix, focimatrix, and at larger sizes follicles become either subordinate or dominant. To examine this, bovine subordinate (9.0±s.e.m. 0.4 mm; n=16), partially dominant (12.0±0.6 mm; n=18) and fully dominant (15.0±0.4 mm; n=14) follicles were examined by real time RT-PCR analyses of granulosa cells and by immunohistochemistry of focimatrix. Changes in the expression of FSH receptor, LH receptor, cholesterol side-chain cleavage (CYP11A1), 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase, aromatase (CYP19A1) and inhibin-α and β-B were observed as expected for follicle sizes examined. After adjusting for size differences, only CYP11A1 was significantly different between the groups, and elevated in dominant follicles. Also after adjusting for differences in size there were no significant differences in expression of focimatrix components collagen type IV α-1 (COL4A1), laminin β-2, nidogen 1 (NID1), and perlecan (HSPG2) or the volume density of NID1 and -2 and HSPG2. The volume density of focimatrix components in laminin 111 was significantly elevated in dominant follicles. Adjusting for analysis of more than one follicle per animal and for multiple correlations, CYP11A1 mRNA levels were highly correlated with the focimatrix genes COL4A1, NID1 and -2 and HSPG2. Thus, focimatrix may potentially regulate CYP11A1 expression, and the regulation of both could be important in follicular dominance.

‘Spotty Dick’ : a research experiment to test design suitability for the use of jewelled spot matrix patterns for UV aware men’s swimwear

The great male Aussie cossie is growing spots. The ‘dick’ tog, as it is colloquially referred to, is linked to Australia’s national identify with overtly masculine bronzed Aussie bodies clothed in this iconic apparel. Yet the reality is our hunger for worshiping the sun and the addiction to a beach lifestyle is tempered by the pragmatic need for neck-to-knee, or more apt head-to-toe, swimwear. Spotty Dick is an irreverent play on male swimwear – it experiments with alternate modes to sheath the body with Lyrca in order to protect it from searing UV’s and at the same time light-heartedly fools around with texture and pattern; to be specific, black Scharovsky crystals, jewelled in spot patterns - jewelled clothing is not characteristically aligned to menswear and even less so to the great Aussie cossie. The crystals form a matrix of spots that attempt to provoke a sense of mischievousness aligned to the Aussie beach larrikin. Ironically, spot patterns are in itself a form of a parody, as prolonged sun exposure ages the skin and sun spots can occur if appropriate sun protection is not used. ‘Spotty Dick’ – a research experiment to test design suitability for the use of jewelled spot matrix patterns for UV aware men’s swimwear. The creative work was paraded at 56 shows, over a 2 week period, and an estimated 50,000 people viewed the work.

Socioeconomic inequalities in weight status among mid-aged adults : the contribution of perceptions of weight status and weight-control behaviours

Background Socioeconomically-disadvantaged adults in developed countries experience a higher prevalence of a number of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis and some forms of cancer. Overweight and obesity are major risk factors for these diseases. Lower socioeconomic groups have a greater prevalence of overweight and obesity and this may contribute to their higher morbidity and mortality. International studies suggest that socioeconomic groups may differ in their self-perceptions of weight status and their engagement in weightcontrol behaviours (WCBs). Research has shown that lower socioeconomic adults are more likely to underestimate their weight status, and are less likely to engage in WCBs. This may contribute (in part) to the marked inequalities in weight status observed at the population level. There are few, and somewhat limited, Australian studies that have examined the types of weight-control strategies people adopt, the barriers to their weight control, the determinants of their perceived weight status and WCBs. Furthermore, there are no known Australian studies that have examined socioeconomic differences in these factors to better understand the reasons for socioeconomic inequalities in weight status. Hence, the overall aim of this Thesis is to examine why socioeconomically-disadvantaged group experience a greater prevalence of overweight and obesity than their more-advantaged counterparts. Methods This Thesis used data from two sources. Men and women aged 45 to 60 years were examined from both data source. First, the longitudinal Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) Study were used to advance our knowledge and understanding of socioeconomic differences in weight change, perceived weight status and WCBs. A total of 2753 participants with measured weights at both baseline (1999-2000) and follow-up (2004-2005) were included in the analyses. Percent weight change over the five-year interval was calculated and perceived weight status, WCBs and highest attained education were collected at baseline. Second, the Candidate conducted a postal questionnaire from 1013 Brisbane residents (69.8 % response rate) to investigate the relationship between socioeconomic position, determinants of perceived weight status, WCBs, and barriers and reasons to weight control. A test-retest reliability study was conducted to determine the reliability of the new measures used in the questionnaire. Most new measures had substantial to almost perfect reliability when considering either kappa coefficient or crude agreement. Results The findings from the AusDiab Study (accepted for publication in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health) showed that low-educated men and women were more likely to be obese at baseline compared to their higheducated respondents (O.R. = 1.97, 95 % C.I. = 1.30-2.98 and O.R. = 1.52, 95 % C.I. = 1.03-2.25, respectively). Over the five year follow-up period (1999-2000 to 2004- 05) there were no socioeconomic differences in weight change among men, however socioeconomically-disadvantaged women had greater weight gains. Participants perceiving themselves as overweight gained less weight than those who saw themselves as underweight or normal weight. There was no relationship between engaging in WCBs and five-year weight change. The postal questionnaire data showed that socioeconomically-disadvantaged groups were less likely to engage in WCBs. If they did engage in weight control, they were less likely to adopt exercise strategies, including moderate and vigorous physical activities but were more likely to decrease their sitting time to control their weight. Socioeconomically-disadvantaged adults reported more barriers to weight control; such as perceiving weight loss as expensive, requiring a lot of cooking skills, not being a high priority and eating differently from other people in the household. These results have been accepted for publication in Public Health Nutrition. The third manuscript (under review in Social Science and Medicine) examined socioeconomic differences in determinants of perceived weight status and reasons for weight control. The results showed that lower socioeconomic adults were more likely to specify the following reasons for weight control: they considered themselves to be too heavy, for occupational requirements, on recommendation from their doctor, family members or friends. Conversely, high-income adults were more likely to report weight control to improve their physical condition or to look more attractive compared with those on lower-incomes. There were few socioeconomic differences in the determinants of perceived weight status. Conclusions Education inequalities in overweight/obesity among men and women may be due to mis-perceptions of weight status; overweight or obese individuals in loweducated groups may not perceive their weight as problematic and therefore may not pay attention to their energy-balance behaviours. Socioeconomic groups differ in WCBs, and their reasons and perceived barriers to weight control. Health promotion programs should encourage weight control among lower socioeconomic groups. More specifically, they should encourage the engagement of physical activity or exercise and dietary strategies among disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, such programs should address potential barriers for weight control that disadvantaged groups may encounter. For example, disadvantaged groups perceive that weight control is expensive, requires cooking skills, not a high priority and eating differently from other people in the household. Lastly, health promotion programs and policies aimed at reducing overweight and obesity should be tailored to the different reasons and motivations to weight control experienced by different socioeconomic groups. Weight-control interventions targeted at higher socioeconomic groups should use improving physical condition and attractiveness as motivational goals; while, utilising social support may be more effective for encouraging weight control among lower socioeconomic groups.