4.5 Article

Histological and Stereological Characterization of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta f. fario) Trunk Kidney

Journal

MICROSCOPY AND MICROANALYSIS
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 677-687

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1431927610093918

Keywords

teleost; renal tubule; nephron; stereology

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) [POCTI/46968/BSE/2002, SFRH/BD/4609/2001]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/4609/2001] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The large variability in kidney morphology among fish makes it difficult to build a universal model on its function and structure. Therefore, a morphological study of brown trout trunk kidney was performed, considering potential seasonal and sex effects. Three-year-old specimens of both sexes were collected at four stages of their reproductive cycle. Kidney was processed for light and electron microscopy. The relative volumes of renal components, such as renal corpuscles and different nephron tubules, were estimated by stereological methods. Qualitatively, the general nephron structure of brown trout was similar to that described for other glomerular teleost species. Quantitatively, however, differences in the relative volume of some renal components were detected between sexes and among seasons. Particularly, highest values of vacuolized tubules and new growing tubules were observed after spawning, being more relevant in females. Despite seasonal changes, more linear correlations were found between those parameters and the reno-somatic index than the gonado-somatic index. Thus, we verified that some brown trout renal components undergo sex dependent seasonal variations, suggesting a morphological adaptation of the components to accomplish physiological needs. These findings constitute a baseline for launching studies to know which factors govern the morphological variations and their functional consequences.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available