4.7 Article

Entry of aminoglycosides into renal tubular epithelial cells via endocytosis-dependent and endocytosis-independent pathways

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 90, 期 4, 页码 331-337

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2014.05.018

关键词

Aminoglycoside antibiotics; Endocytosis; Megalin; Cation channels; Renal tubular cells

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23406005, 26293033, 23590182] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aminoglycoside antibiotics such as gentamicin and amikacin are well recognized as a clinically important antibiotic class because of their reliable efficacy and low cost. However, the clinical use of aminoglycosides is limited by their nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. Nephrotoxicity is induced mainly due to high accumulation of the antibiotics in renal proximal tubular cells. Therefore, a lot of studies on characterization of the renal transport system for aminoglycosides so far reported involved various in-vivo and in-vitro techniques. Early studies revealed that aminoglycosides are taken up through adsorptive endocytosis in renal epithelial cells. Subsequently, it was found that megalin, a multiligand endocytic receptor abundantly expressed on the apical side of renal proximal tubular cells, can bind aminoglycosides and that megalin-mediated endocytosis plays a crucial role in renal accumulation of aminoglycosides. Therefore, megalin has been suggested to be a promising molecular target for the prevention of aminoglycoside-induced nephrotoxicity. On the other hand, recently, some reports have indicated that aminoglycosides are transported via a pathway that does not require endocytosis, such as non-selective cation channel-mediated entry, in cultured renal tubular cells as well as cochlear outer hair cells. In this commentary article, we review the cellular transport of aminoglycosides in renal epithelial cells, focusing on endocytosis-dependent and -independent pathways. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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