4.4 Article

Validation of Glomerular Basement Membrane Thickness Changes with Aging in Minimal Change Disease

Journal

PATHOBIOLOGY
Volume 77, Issue 6, Pages 315-319

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000321961

Keywords

Glomerular basement membrane thickness changes; Minimal change disease; Aging; Electron microscopy; Histogram plotting

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Measurement of the normal range of glomerular basement membrane (GBM) thickness by electron microscopy is required for the diagnosis of thin basement membrane disease or diabetic nephropathy; however, this measurement is influenced by aging. The aim of this study was to introduce a simple histogram plotting method for the validation of the results of the GBM thickness measurements by the accepted arithmetic mean +/- SD method. We examined renal biopsy specimens obtained from 19 patients (10 males and 9 females) with minimal change disease, ranging in age from 3 to 70 years. Renal tissue samples obtained at autopsy from a male baby (3 months old) with no renal disease were also examined. For each case, GBM thicknesses at 10-15 evenly distributed points per glomerular loop were directly measured and the arithmetic mean +/- SD was calculated. Subsequently, the arithmetic mean +/- SD for each group of cases classified by age into 4 groups, i.e. babyhood (3 months old), childhood (3-11 years old), adulthood (12-57 years old), and old age (60-70 years old), was determined. On the other hand, a histogram of the frequency of GBM points measured against thickness was plotted to determine the distribution pattern and the range of measurements in each age group. The histogram plot showed 4 clearly divided modes for GBM thickness. Comparison of the results obtained by the 2 methods revealed a significant correlation indicating the feasibility of the histogram plotting method as a useful adjunct to validate GBM thickness measurements. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available