4.4 Article

Urinary glycosaminoglycans as biomarker for urothelial injury: Is it possible to discriminate damage from recovery?

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 72, Issue 4, Pages 937-942

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.01.028

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES The glycosaminoglycan (GAG) layer is referred to as a bladder protective factor. We reproduced an experimental model of urothelial damage to assess GAG metabolism in the process of injury and recovery of the urothelium. METHODS Wistar female rats were bladder catheterized and instilled with either protamine sulfate (PS groups) or sterile saline (control groups). At different days after the procedure, 24-hour urine samples were obtained. The urinary levels of hyaluronic acid (HA) and sulfated glycosaminoglycan were determined in all groups and in nonmanipulated rats (day 0). Additionally, sulfated-GAG synthesis was assessed by the incorporation of [S-35]-inorganic sulfate. The bladders were analyzed by histochemical staining for HA and immunofluorescence for heparin sulfate and syndecan-4. RESULTS Urinary HA and sulfated-GAG were elevated after PS injection (P <0.05). A greater concentration of [S-35] -labeled GAG in the PS group animals on the fifth day and, especially, on the seventh day represented increased GAG synthesis at these periods (P <0.05). Bladder sections from the PS group animals on day 1 showed a greater amount of HA in the urothelium. PS instillation damaged the urothelium layer of heparin sulfate and syndecan-4 seen in the control animals. On day 5, patchy areas of a restored layer were seen, and, on day 7, this layer had completely regenerated. CONCLUSIONS Urinary GAG cannot differentiate urothelial damage from recovery. Elevated levels of urinary GAG can result from either desquamation of the surface cell GAG layer or increased GAG synthesis to regenerate the damaged urothelium.

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