Inactivation of lipoprotein lipase occurs on the surface of THP-1 macrophages where oligomers of angiopoietin-like protein 4 are formed

Lipoprotein lipase (LPL) hydrolyzes triglycerides in plasma lipoproteins causing release of fatty acids for metabolic purposes in muscles and adipose tissue. LPL in macrophages in the artery wall may, however, promote foam cell formation and atherosclerosis. Angiopoietin-like protein (ANGPTL) 4 inactivates LPL and ANGPTL4 expression is controlled by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR). The mechanisms for inactivation of LPL by ANGPTL4 was studied in THP-1 macrophages where active LPL is associated with cell surfaces in a heparin-releasable form, while LPL in the culture medium is mostly inactive. The PPARδ agonist GW501516 had no effect on LPL mRNA, but increased ANGPTL4 mRNA and caused a marked reduction of the heparin-releasable LPL activity concomitantly with accumulation of inactive, monomeric LPL in the medium. Intracellular ANGPTL4 was monomeric, while dimers and tetramers of ANGPTL4 were present in the heparin-releasable fraction and medium. GW501516 caused an increase in the amount of ANGPTL4 oligomers on the cell surface that paralleled the decrease in LPL activity. Actinomycin D blocked the effects of GW501516 on ANGPTL4 oligomer formation and prevented the inactivation of LPL. Antibodies against ANGPTL4 interfered with the inactivation of LPL. We conclude that inactivation of LPL in THP-1 macrophages primarily occurs on the cell surface where oligomers of ANGPTL4 are formed.     

Love or fear: Can punishment promote cooperation?

Cooperation is a paradox: Why should one perform a costly behavior only to increase the fitness of another? Human societies, in which individuals cooperate with genetically unrelated individuals on a considerably larger scale than most mammals do, are especially puzzling in this regard. Recently, the threat of punishment has been given substantial attention as one of the mechanisms that could help sustain human cooperation in such situations. Nevertheless, using punishment to explain cooperation only leads to further questions: Why spend precious resources to penalize free‐riders, especially if others can avoid this investment and cheaters can punish you back? Here, it is argued that current evidence supports punishment as an efficient means for the maintenance of cooperation, and that the gravity of proposed limitations of punishment for maintaining cooperation may have been overestimated in previous studies due to the features of experimental design. Most notably, the importance of factors as characteristic of human societies as reputation and language has been greatly neglected. Ironically, it was largely the combination of the two that enabled humans to shape costly punishment into numerous low‐cost and less detrimental strategies that clearly can promote human cooperation.     

What people prefer and what they think they prefer in short- and long-term partners. The effects of the phase of the menstrual cycle,hormonal contraception,pregnancy, and the marital and the parenthood status on partner preferences

The issue with most studies concerned with mate selection preferences in humans is that they rely on declarations and rational actions of experimental subjects, which are affected by their pre-conceived opinions and prejudices. Moreover, current research suggests that subcortical structures and processes, rather than the neocortex, play the principal role in actual partner choice behaviour. Consequently, we have only limited information on how relevant our current knowledge is in relation to real-life human ethology. To address these issues, we surveyed 2718 women and 4073 men between the ages of 16–50 and compared their declared and observed preferences for various properties in short-term and long-term partners. We found differences between what the subjects declared to prefer and what they preferred in reality: for example, men declared that wealth was the second least desirable property out of eleven in short-term partners, but we observed that in reality, they considered wealth the third most important factor after charisma and sense of humour. Similarly, while women declared that dominance and masculinity were desirable properties in short-term partners, in the observational part of the study, they showed little preference for these traits. Furthermore, we investigated the effects of the phase of the menstrual cycle, hormonal contraception, pregnancy, and partnership and parenthood status on these preferences. We found some support for the good parents hypothesis and no support for the good genes and the immunocompetence handicap hypotheses when observed, rather than declared preferences were considered. We also detected that hormonal contraception, and parenthood and partnership status influenced declared preferences in considerable ways, but had only a small, if any, impact on observed preferences. We suggest interpreting the results of studies reliant on declarations and rational actions of experimental subjects with great caution.