4.3 Article

Comparison of chronic renal failure rats and modification of the preparation protocol as a hyperphosphataemia model

Journal

NEPHROLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages 139-146

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2007.00844.x

Keywords

adenine; chronic renal failure; complication; rat; subnephrectomized

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Several animal models with chronic renal failure have been established and used for demonstrating complications including hyperphosphataemia. Although long-time feeding is required to cause hyperphosphataemia in animals, a few modifications have been reported to provide more useful models for research. Methods: Three separate experiments were carried out in the present study. First, characteristics of commonly used subnephrectomized (5/6Nx) rats and rats fed an adenine diet (0.75% adenine in normal diet) were compared as hyperphosphataemia models. Next, using adenine-diet rats, the inhibitory effect of sevelamer hydrochloride (Sev) on serum phosphorus elevation was examined. Third, oral adenine dosing for induction of hyperphosphataemia and validation as a model using Sev were examined. Results: Serum phosphorus in 5/6Nx rats became elevated in 8-17 weeks, but the levels and time points of elevation differed among animals. In adenine-fed rats, the elevation was more clearly demonstrated with less diversity at 4 weeks. The data revealed a potential shorter model preparation period and the importance of controlling feeding amounts. Oral adenine dosing induced hyperphosphataemia by 12 days, and Sev treatment was inhibitory. After a maintenance period of over a month (no treatments), Sev-treated rats showed hyperphosphataemia as did oral adenine-dosed control rats. The serum phosphorus levels significantly decreased on further Sev treatment. Conclusion: Oral dosing with adenine made the model preparation period definitely shorter, and its usefulness as a hyperphosphataemia model was revealed using Sev.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available