4.4 Article

Ischemic Postconditioning Inhibits the Renal Fibrosis Induced by Ischemia-reperfusion Injury in Rats

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 80, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.054

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30901494, 30901552]
  2. Province Natural Science Foundation of Hubei [2009CDB382]
  3. Scholarship Award for Excellent Doctoral Student granted by the Ministry of Education
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether ischemic postconditioning effects on the development of tubulointerstitial fibrosis follow acute renal ischemia-reperfusion. METHODS Rat models of warm renal I/R were established by clamping left pedicles for 45 minutes after right nephrectomy, both with and without treatment with ischemic postconditioning, and then reperfused for up to 12 weeks. Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) and Masson's trichrome staining were used to assess renal fibrosis. The expression spot and protein levels of alpha-smooth muscle actin (alpha-SMA), transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-beta 1), and phospho-Smad2 were also analyzed. RESULTS Our data showed that patchy inflammation and tubulointerstitial fibrosis were found 12 weeks later in rats subjected to I/R alone or with postconditioning. Tubulointerstitial fibrosis worsened further in rats subjected to 45-minute ischemia-reperfusion, accompanied by the increased expressions of alpha-SMA, TGF-beta 1, and phospho-Smad2 at the end of 12 weeks. In contrast, the above histologic changes and molecular expressions were significantly attenuated in rats of ischemic postconditioning group. CONCLUSION The results indicated that 45-minute I/R injury may cause tubulointerstitial fibrosis in the long term, and ischemic postconditioning has beneficial effects on renal fibrosis. Its mechanisms may involve inhibition of the TGF-beta 1/phospho-Smad2 pathway to exert protective effects. UROLOGY 80: 484.e1-484.e7, 2012. (c) 2012 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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