4.6 Review

Alport syndrome-insights from basic and clinical research

Journal

NATURE REVIEWS NEPHROLOGY
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages 170-178

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nrneph.2012.259

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. German Kidney Foundation
  2. Cologne Fortune Program of the University Cologne
  3. German Research Foundation [DFG GR 1852/4-1, DFG GR 1852/4-2]
  4. Association pour l'Information et la Recherche sur les Maladies Renales Genetiques (AIRG-France)
  5. KfH Foundation Preventive Medicine (Fritz-Scheler Stipendium of the German Society of Nephrology)
  6. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF Program, Clinical Trials) [01KG1104]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 1927, Arthur C. Alport first published his description of a triad of symptoms in a family with hereditary congenital haemorrhagic nephritis, deafness and ocular changes. A few years after his death, this group of symptoms was renamed Alport syndrome. To this day, Alport syndrome still inevitably leads to end-stage renal disease and the need for renal replacement therapy, starting in young adulthood. During the past two decades, research into this rare disease has focused on the effects of mutations in collagen type IV and the role of changes in podocytes and the glomerular basement membrane that lead to early kidney fibrosis. Animal models of Alport syndrome also demonstrate the pathogenetic importance of interactions between podocytes and the extracellular matrix. Such models might also help researchers to answer basic questions about podocyte function and the development of fibrosis, and to develop new therapeutic approaches that might be of use in other kidney diseases. In this Review, we discuss the latest basic and clinical research on Alport syndrome, focusing on the roles of podocyte pathology and the extracellular matrix. We also highlight early diagnosis and treatment options for young patients with this disorder.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available