AimsDespite the lower patency of venous compared with arterial coronary artery bypass grafts, ∼50% of grafts used are saphenous vein conduits because of their easier accessibility. In a search for ways to increase venous graft patency, we applied the results of a previous pharmacological study screening for non-toxic compounds that inhibit intimal hyperplasia of saphenous vein conduits in organ cultures. Here we analyse the effects and mechanism of action of leoligin [(2S,3R,4R)-4-(3,4-dimethoxybenzyl)-2-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)tetrahydrofuran-3-yl]methyl (2Z)-2-methylbut-2-enoat, the major lignan from Edelweiss (Leontopodium alpinum Cass.).Methods and resultsWe found that leoligin potently inhibits vascular smooth muscle cell (SMC) proliferation by inducing cell cycle arrest in the G1-phase. Leoligin induced cell death neither in SMCs nor, more importantly, in endothelial cells. In a human saphenous vein organ culture model for graft disease, leoligin potently inhibited intimal hyperplasia, and even reversed graft disease in pre-damaged vessels. Furthermore, in an in vivo mouse model for venous bypass graft disease, leoligin potently inhibited intimal hyperplasia.ConclusionOur data suggest that leoligin might represent a novel non-toxic, non-thrombogenic, endothelial integrity preserving candidate drug for the treatment of vein graft disease.

The size and duration of land grabs in Sub Saharan Africa are of dimensions never seen before. This work aims at using human rights as a tool to address the impact of land grabbing on local livelihoods. Findings suggest that land grabs serve the interests of investing governments entailing direct or indirect state involvement. In the majority of cases investments are characterised by a lack of transparency and participation of local populations. Land grabs cause loss of access to land and resources leaving people unable to feed themselves. At the same time those affected have no voice to demand justice. This article explores the obligations of host states under economic, social and cultural rights and examines extraterritorial obligations of investing states. The findings are applied to a case study of a Chinese investment in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The author argues that a human rights approach does not leave space for land grabs.Keywords: Land Grabbing, Human Rights, Food Security, Extraterritorial Obligations, China, Democratic Republic of Congo. ResumenLa área y la duración del acaparamiento de tierras en África al sur del Sahara son de dimensiones nunca antes vistas. Este trabajo tiene como objetivo utilizar los derechos humanos como un instrumento para abordar el impacto del acaparamiento de tierras a los sustentos locales. Los resultados sugieren que el acaparamiento de tierras sirve en primer lugar a los intereses de los gobiernos que invierten y que impliquen la participación de esos de forma directa o indirecta. En la mayoría de los casos, las inversiones se caracterizan por una falta de transparencia y la participación de las poblaciones locales. El acaparamiento de tierras causa la pérdida del acceso a la tierra y los recursos que resulta en que la gente es incapaz de alimentarse por sí misma. Al mismo tiempo, las personas afectadas no tienen voz para exigir justicia. Este artículo explora las obligaciones de los estados anfitriones bajo los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales, y examina las obligaciones extraterritoriales de los estados que invierten. Las investigaciones se aplican a un caso de estudio de una inversión de China en la República Democrática del Congo. El autor argumenta que un enfoque de derechos humanos no deja espacio para la apropiación de tierras.