The effect of lutein- and zeaxanthin-rich foods v. supplements on macular pigment level and serological markers of endothelial activation inflammation and oxidation pilot studies in healthy volunteers:pilot studies in healthy volunteers

The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of lutein- and zeaxanthin-rich foods and supplements on macular pigment level (MPL) and serological markers of endothelial activation, inflammation and oxidation in healthy volunteers. We conducted two 8-week intervention studies. Study 1 (n 52) subjects were randomised to receive either carrot juice (a carotene-rich food) or spinach powder (a lutein- and zeaxanthin-rich food) for 8 weeks. Study 2 subjects (n 75) received supplements containing lutein and zeaxanthin, ß-carotene, or placebo for 8 weeks in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. MPL, serum concentrations of lipid-soluble antioxidants, inter-cellular adhesion molecule 1, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, C-reactive protein and F2-isoprostane levels were assessed at baseline and post-intervention in both studies. In these intervention studies, no effects on MPL or markers of endothelial activation, inflammation or oxidation were observed. However, the change in serum lutein and zeaxanthin was associated or tended to be associated with the change in MPL in those receiving lutein- and zeaxanthin-rich foods (lutein r 0.40, P = 0.05; zeaxanthin r 0.30, P = 0.14) or the lutein and zeaxanthin supplement (lutein r 0.43, P = 0.03; zeaxanthin r 0.22, P = 0.28). In both studies, the change in MPL was associated with baseline MPL (food study r - 0.54, P <0.001; supplement study r - 0.40, P <0.001). We conclude that this 8-week supplementation with lutein and zeaxanthin, whether as foods or as supplements, had no significant effect on MPL or serological markers of endothelial activation, inflammation and oxidation in healthy volunteers, but may improve MPL in the highest serum responders and in those with initially low MPL.

A new landscape of arts-based buildings and comparative cultural policies on the island of Ireland: the curse of Jocasta's necklace

Much current cultural policy research focuses on activity traditionally viewed as arts practice: visual arts, music, literature and dance. Architecture’s role in the discussion of cultural policy is, however, less certain and thus less frequently interrogated. The study presented here both addresses this dearth of in-depth research while also contributing to the interdisciplinary discussion of cultural policy in wider terms. In seeking to better understand how architectural culture is regulated and administered in a specific case study, it unpacks how the complicated relationships of nominal and explicit policies on both sides of the Irish/Northern Irish border contributed to the significant expansion of arts-based buildings 1995-2008. It contrasts political and cultural motivations behind these projects during a period of significant economic growth, investment and inward immigration. Data has been gathered from both official published policies as well as interviews with elite actors in the decision-making field and architects who produced the buildings of interest in both countries. With the sizeable number of arts-based buildings now completed in both Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, one must wonder if this necklace of buildings is, like Jocasta’s, a thing of both beauty and redolent with a potential future curse. It is the goal of this project to contribute to the larger applied and critical discussion of these issues and to engage with future policy design, administration and, certainly, evaluation.