4.5 Article

Growth hormone exacerbates diabetic renal damage in male but not female rats

Journal

BIOLOGY OF SEX DIFFERENCES
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/2042-6410-4-12

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Human and animal studies support the idea that there are sex differences in the development of diabetic renal disease. Our lab and others have determined that in addition to Ang II (through the AT(1)R), growth hormone (GH) contributes to renal damage in models of renal failure; however, the impact of sex and GH on the mechanisms initiating diabetic renal disease is not known. This study examined the effect of sex and GH on parameters of renal damage in early, uncontrolled streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetes. Methods: Adult male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were injected with vehicle (control), STZ, or STZ + GH and euthanized after 8 weeks. Results: Mild but significant glomerulosclerosis (GS) and tubulointerstitial fibrosis (TIF) was observed in both kidneys from male and female diabetic rats, with GH significantly increasing GS and TIF by 30% and 25% in male rats, but not in female rats. STZ increased TGF-beta expression in both kidneys from male and female rats; however, while GH had no further effect on TGF-beta protein in diabetic females, GH increased TGF-beta protein in the male rat's kidneys by an additional 30%. This sex-specific increase in renal injury following GH treatment was marked by increased MCP-1 and CD-68+ cell density. STZ also reduced renal MMP-2 and MMP-9 protein expression in both kidneys from male and female rats, but additional decreases were only observed in GH-treated diabetic male rats. The sex differences were independent of AT1R activity. Conclusions: These studies indicate that GH affects renal injury in diabetes in a sex-specific manner and is associated with an increase in pro-inflammatory mediators.

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