4.7 Article

Distinct roles for C3a and C5a in complement-induced tubulointerstitial injury

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 80, 期 5, 页码 524-534

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2011.158

关键词

complement; interstitial fibrosis; renal failure; transgenic mouse; transplantation

资金

  1. NIH [R01 DK041873]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To prevent injury to host tissues, complement activation is regulated by a number of plasma and membrane-associated proteins, most of which limit C3 and C5 activation. An influx of circulating C3 from a syngeneic host into donor kidneys deficient in Crry (a membrane protein that reduces C3 convertase activity) causes spontaneous complement activation, primarily in the tubulointerstitum, leading to renal failure. To determine the roles of the C3a and C5a anaphylatoxins in tubulointerstitial inflammation and fibrosis, kidneys from Crry(-/-)C3(-/-) mice were transplanted into hosts lacking the C3a and/or C5a receptor. While unrestricted complement activation in the tubules was not affected by receptor status in the transplant recipient, C3a receptor deficiency in the recipients led to significantly reduced renal leukocyte infiltration and the extent of tubulointerstitial inflammation and fibrosis, all of which led to preserved renal function. The absence of C5a receptors in recipients was not only inconsequential, but the protective effect of C3a receptor deficiency was also eliminated, suggesting distinct roles of C3a and C5a receptor signaling in this model. There was significant infiltration of the tubulointerstitum with 7/4(+)F4/80(+)CD11b(+) myelomonocytic cells and Thy1.2(+) T cells along injured tubules, and interstitial collagen I and III deposition, all of which were C3a receptor dependent. Thus, blockade of C3a receptor signaling is a possible treatment to reduce renal inflammation and preserve renal function associated with complement activation. Kidney International (2011) 80, 524-534; doi:10.1038/ki.2011.158; published online 15 June 2011

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据