The Ty1- copia-like retrotransposon is one of the commonest class of transposable elements in the plant kingdom, often comprising several percent of the total DNA content. We aimed to study the evolutionary relationships of Olea retroelements, using part of the reverse transcriptase domain, as well as the genomic and chromosomal organization of these sequences in Olea europaea chromosomes and their transcription activity and copy number. Fourteen clones, that were isolated from four different species, were sequenced and a phylogenetic tree was constructed based on their predicted amino acids. Five clones derived from O. europaea were clustered together with a 87% nucleotide sequence homology and two Olea oleaster clones showed 98% sequence homology. The rest of the clones showed heterogeneity among them, leading to a common ancestral transposon that existed before the genus arose. The Ty1- copia-like sequences have a dispersed genomic organization, physically distributed on all chromosomes, showing minor clustering in some cases and low copy numbers in the smallest chromosome pair. The total copy number in the O. europaea genome was estimated by dot blotting to be 40,000 in a haploid nucleus, but a number of these are non-functional since the sequenced clones contained stop codons and frame-shifts. Some Ty1- copia-like copies, present in O. europaea, were found to be methylated, while no differences in methylation were observed between DNA isolated from young leaves and callus-suspension cultures.

This study investigated the differences in the effect of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) compared with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) on blood pressure (BP) and pulse pressure (PP) measured in the clinic (CBP and CPP, respectively), at home (HBP, HPP) and with ambulatory monitoring (ABP, APP). Twenty-seven hypertensive patients were randomised to receive lisinopril (20 mg) or losartan (50 mg) for 5 weeks, and were subsequently crossed-over to the alternative treatment for a second 5-week period. Measurements of CBP, 24-h ABP and 5-days HBP were performed before randomisation and at the end of each treatment period. All measurement methods showed that lisinopril was more effective than losartan in reducing BP. However, the difference between the two drugs was demonstrated with greater precision using HBP (P<0.001) than 24-h ABP (P<0.01), whereas the poorest precision for demonstrating this difference was provided by CBP (P<0.05). Lisinopril was also found more effective than losartan in reducing HPP (P=0.01) and 24-h APP (P=0.03) whereas no such a difference was detected using measurements of CPP. It was concluded that the antihypertensive drugs may differ in their effects not only on BP, but also on PP. HBP monitoring appears to be as reliable as 24-h ABP monitoring in detecting differences in the effect of drugs on both BP and PP. Clinic measurements seem to be the least reliable method, particularly in the detection of differences in PP.

The aim of the present study was to assess the main determinants of arterial stiffness in Greek and French middle-aged, hypertensive men, by using pulse wave velocity (PWV) measurements, which is an established method of quantification of arterial stiffness. The study was performed in 83 consecutive Greek and 79 consecutive French untreated male hypertensive outpatients aged 45-65 years. French subjects were examined in Paris at the "Centre d'Investigations Préventives et Cliniques" (the IPC Center). Greek patients were examined in Athens at the hypertension outpatient clinic in Sotiria Hospital (University of Athens). In both Greek and French hypertensive subjects, aortic stiffness was determined by the same parameters: age, blood pressure and heart rate (HR) explained approximately 40% of the aortic PWV variations, whereas lipids, triglycerides and tobacco smoking were not significant associated with aortic stiffness. After multivariate adjustments, Greek hypertensives had higher aortic stiffness as compared to the French patients by 1.2 m/s (approximately 10%); p < 0.001. Greek hypertensive subjects had also a higher body weight, waist, HR and prevalence of smoking. However, among all these factors only HR had a significant effect on PWV. Also after adjustment for HR, the difference in PWV between the two populations persisted. In conclusion, in two different populations, stiffness seems to be regulated by the same major factors. The higher aortic stiffness found in Greek hypertensives may be explained by the presence of other non-evaluated risk factors and/or patient selection differences.

To test the hypothesis that the antihypertensive response to angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition can predict the response to angiotensin II type I receptor (AT1R) antagonism, 33 hypertensive patients were randomized to receive lisinopril (20 mg) or losartan (50 mg) for 5 weeks. Patients were then crossed-over to the alternative treatment for a second 5-week period. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP (ABP) was measured before randomization and on the final day of each period. The agreement in ABP response between the two drugs was assessed using the following approaches: Subjects were classified as responders and nonresponders using as a threshold an arbitrary level of response (ABP fall > or = 10 mm Hg systolic or > or = 5 mm Hg diastolic) or the median ABP response achieved by each of the drugs. Disagreement between the two drugs in the responders-nonresponders classification was expressed as the proportion of subjects whose ABP responded to one of the drugs only. Lisinopril was more effective than losartan in reducing ABP (mean difference 4.7+/-8.1/3.3+/-5.7 mm Hg, systolic/diastolic, P < .05). Disagreement in the antihypertensive response between the two drugs was found in 39%/33% of subjects for systolic/diastolic ABP using the arbitrary response criterion (33%/39% using the median response criterion). Significant correlations were found between the responses to lisinopril and losartan (r = 0.47/0.59, systolic/diastolic, P < .01). We conclude that in more than one third of hypertensive subjects, the BP response to ACE inhibition fails to predict the response to AT1R antagonism and vice versa. These data suggest that there are differences between these two drug classes that are not only of theoretical but also of practical significance.

To evaluate reference values of home blood pressure (HBP) a cross-sectional community study was conducted on 694 adult subjects (aged > or = 18 years) of the village Didima in southern Greece (participation rate 76.4%). Clinic blood pressure (CBP) was measured on two visits (triplicate measurements, mercury sphygmomanometer) and HBP on 3 workdays (duplicate morning and evening measurements, oscillometric devices; Omron HEM 705CP). After exclusion of 132 subjects (103 treated hypertensives and 29 with incomplete data), 562 subjects were analyzed (mean +/- SD aged 51.2 +/- 17.2 years, 42.7% men). Average HBP (120.0 +/- 17.8/72.6 +/- 8.8 mm Hg, systolic/diastolic) was strongly correlated (P < .0001) with CBP (118.7 +/- 17.7/73.8 +/- 10.5 mm Hg). Systolic CBP was 1.3 mm Hg lower than HBP (P < .01, 95% confidence interval 0.4, 2.2), whereas diastolic CBP was 1.2 mm Hg higher than HBP (P < .0001, 95% confidence interval 0.6, 1.7). The threshold of HBP normality determined using three different approaches was 1) 139.7/83.0 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) using the distribution criterion (95th percentile of the HBP distribution among 476 normotensive subjects); 2) 139.7/85.8 mm Hg using the correspondence criterion (the percentiles of the CBP distribution that correspond to CBP > or = 140/90 mm Hg were estimated, and the levels of BP that correspond to these same percentiles on the HBP distribution were calculated); and 3) 137.4/82.7 mm Hg using the regression criterion (calculation of the levels of HBP that correspond to CBP of 140/90 mm Hg using the regression equation between HBP and CBP). Overall, the findings of the three criteria suggest that average HBP < 137/82 mm Hg might be considered as probably normal, > 140/86 mm Hg as probably abnormal, and within these limits as borderline. Until mortality-based prospective data are available, this approach might be useful in the interpretation of HBP in clinical practice.

The study was designed to assess the antihypertensive effect of combined angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition and angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1) antagonism in patients with essential hypertension. Twenty patients with uncontrolled ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (BP) after 6 weeks of ACE inhibitor monotherapy (benazepril, 20 mg, o.d.) were randomized to receive double-blind valsartan, 80 mg, o.d. (AT1 antagonist) or matching placebo for 5 weeks while continuing to receive background benazepril. Then patients crossed over to the alternative regimen for a second 5-week period. The 24-h ambulatory BP was monitored on the final day of the benazepril monotherapy period and on the final day of each double-blind treatment period. Valsartan added to benazepril produced a significant antihypertensive effect with a benefit over placebo of 6.5 +/- 12.6/4.5 +/- 8.0 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) for average awake ambulatory BP (p < 0.05), 7.1 +/- 9.4/5.6 +/- 6.5 mm Hg for asleep BP (p < 0.01), and 6.8 +/- 9.7/4.9 +/- 6.8 mm Hg for average 24-h ambulatory BP (p < 0.01). Pulse rate was unaffected. Plasma active renin was higher on the benazepril-valsartan combination compared with benazepril-placebo (p < 0.05). There was no change in routine biochemical variables when valsartan was added to benazepril. Six patients reported mild dizziness or fatigue (three also with placebo). These data suggest that in hypertensive patients uncontrolled with an ACE inhibitor, the addition of an AT1 antagonist provides a powerful and safe antihypertensive drug combination.

The present study was aimed at reviewing the medical literature devoted to the clinical applications of self-blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) and at providing some recommendations regarding the use of SBPM for diagnostic purposes. The lack of reliability of conventional blood pressure (BP) measurement is largely related to the extreme variability of BP over time. SBPM provides a large number of readings and can be used to predict the results of repeated clinical measurements. The use of SBPM in the diagnosis of white coat hypertension can be proposed as a screening test: if it gives a positive result (a low home BP), it should be confirmed by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). SBPM could improve patients' compliance with medication. Last, SBPM may be cost-effective for the management of hypertensive patients, by reducing costs of medication, number of clinic visits and costs of cardiovascular morbidity. Compared with ABPM, SBPM seems to have a less value for the initial diagnosis of hypertension and for predicting prognosis. In contrast, it should be of more value for the long term follow-up of patients with white coat hypertension and for the evaluation of treatment efficacy in patients with sustained hypertension. The use of SBPM in diabetic hypertensives, in pregnant women and in the elderly is encouraged, but needs further evaluation.