• 2018-07
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • The eNOS bp VNTR polymorphism has been


    The eNOS 27-bp VNTR polymorphism has been found to be associated with altered plasma NO levels. This polymorphism also has been associated with many vascular diseases including hypertension, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic nephropathy in various populations. Notably, our results were different from a previous study by Zhao et al., which revealed that no significant association between eNOS 27-bp VNTR polymorphism and LCPD risk. Moreover, in the present study, frequency of 27-bp VNTR polymorphism genotypes was not significantly higher in control group than LCPD patients. Therefore, we suggest that the eNOS 27-bp VNTR polymorphism may not function as a protective factor LCPD risk.
    Conflicts of interest
    Introduction Socio-economic benefits of bioenergy use can clearly be identified as a significant driving force in increasing the share of bioenergy in the total energy supply (OECD, 2009). Based on global estimates, woody arn-509 mg could at least satisfy 2–18% of world primary energy consumption in 2050 (Lauri et al., 2014). In most countries regional creation of employment and economic gains have been probably the two most important issues regarding biomass use for energy production (Domac, 2005). From the viewpoint of regional development, bioenergy is important as it can set up new production systems across stagnating rural regions with dispersed populations (Perez-Verdin et al., 2008), reduce import dependency (Jackson et al., 2018), and create a significant number of jobs and stimulate rural economies by increasing value addition to local assets (Mirata et al., 2005). Moreover, bioenergy systems can increase the variety of the regional economy to improve and diversify economic structure of declining regions (Tonts et al., 2014). The increased investments and improved utilization of the bioenergy resources could slow down the decline taking place in extensive rural areas by providing jobs and offering higher incomes (Okkonen and Lehtonen, 2016), and thereby helping to achieve a more vital demographic structure and a better provision of services (Lehtonen and Tykkyläinen, 2008). Woody biomass is of particular interest in bioenergy production because, unlike many other potential biomass sources, it does not include crops that are used for energy and food, but comes from forest resources that are mostly underutilized in rural areas (Jackson et al., 2018). Socio-economic impact studies are commonly used to evaluate the local, regional, and/or national implications of implementing bioenergy related development decisions (Lehtonen and Okkonen, 2016, Jackson et al., 2018). Typically, these studies have focused on analysing socioeconomic impacts of the construction and production phases (e.g. He et al., 2016) but the understanding from the long-term socioeconomic impacts of the whole bioenergy system is missing. The knowledge of some of the socioeconomic impacts accumulates over time, and therefore studies might ignore some of the socioeconomic impacts. In many cases, especially in heat production, biomass can also be a cheaper option for consumers than traditional oil heating and so release more money for other uses in the local economy. At the local level, these “hidden” socioeconomic impacts of the bioenergy systems can be very significant and detailed information is needed for the decision-making. The socioeconomic impacts are largely dependent also on the heat energy business models. The local production systems utilising local resources and infrastructure can maximize the benefits, while systems based on imported fuel are typically less beneficial for the local economy. In Finland, the number of energy entrepreneurship based heating plants has increased steadily between the early establishments in the 1990\'s, to 330 plants in 2006 (Okkonen and Suhonen, 2010) and 618 in 2015 (TTS Institute 2016). According to the TTS (2016) heat enterprise register the heat enterprises are mostly private companies (43%), cooperatives (12.7%), and other types of firms, mostly single entrepreneurs (44.5%). Most of these enterprises are based on the local forest resources, in approximately a 30–50 km radius, and employ local contractors for resource supply.