4.5 Article

Age-Dependent Responses to Renal lschemia-Reperfusion Injury

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 172, Issue 1, Pages 153-158

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.08.034

Keywords

reactive oxygen species; ischemic reperfusion; acute renal dysfunction; aged rats; 8-OHdG

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the elderly population has steadily increased in recent years. Functional recovery after AKI is also impaired in the elderly; however, the mechanism underlying these age-related differences is not well understood. In the present study, we assessed kidney morphology, function, and oxidative stress in young and aged rats after renal ischemia and reperfusion. Materials and Methods. Young (6- to 7-wk-old) and aged (60- to 65-wk-old) male Wistar rats were divided into four groups based on age and treatment: renal ischemia-reperfusion in young rats (young IR); renal ischemia-reperfusion in aged rats (aged IR); sham treatment in young rats (young control), and sham treatment in aged rats (aged control). Rats were sacrificed 24 h after treatment, serum blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine (Cre) concentrations were determined, and kidney tissue histology and 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) levels were evaluated. Results. After ischemia-reperfusion, serum BUN, and Cre levels were higher in aged rats than in young rats. Reperfusion-induced kidney damage and kidney tissue 8-OHdG levels were also more severe in the aged IR group. Moreover, plasma antioxidant potential was lower in aged IR rats than in young IR rats. Conclusions. Aged rats exhibited reduced antioxidant potential and increased oxidative stress after ischemia-reperfusion. Our findings demonstrate that aged rats experience more severe reperfusion-induced injuries compared with young rats. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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