4.6 Article

Age-dependent thickening of glomerular basement membrane has no major effect on glomerular hydraulic conductivity

Journal

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 805-811

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfh067

Keywords

ageing rat kidney; glomerular capillary basement membrane thickness; glomerular capillary surface area; glomerular effective hydraulic conductivity; isolated perfused kidney; micropuncture methods

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The effect of the increasing thickness of the glomerular basement membrane (GBM), which is seen in ageing rats, on the effective hydraulic conductivity (k) of the glomerular capillary wall was studied in Wistar rats aged 2 and 18 months. Methods. With the use of micropuncture techniques, ultrafiltration characteristics of cortical glomeruli were determined in isolated cell-free perfused kidneys. Because the filtration fraction in this preparation is low (3%) as a consequence of high perfusion rates at glomerular filtration rates comparable with in vivo conditions, uniform ultrafiltration conditions are provided over the whole filtering surface. After fixation at a defined perfusion pressure, the surface of glomerular capillaries (S) was obtained morphometrically on light microscopic sections of the glomeruli studied previously. Results. The glomerular ultrafiltration coefficient (K-f) was 0.025 nl/s(.)mmHg in young rats and 0.038 nl/s(.) mmHg in old rats (P<0.0005) and S was 0.140 mm(2) in young and 0.244 mm(2) in old rats (P<0.0005). However, k was not significantly different (18.0 nl/s(.) mmHg(.)cm(2) in young and 15.8 nl/s(.)mmHg(.)cm(2) in old rats) despite a 2.4-fold increase of GBM thickness as estimated from electron microscopic sections. Conclusions. These findings indicate that the age-dependent increase of GBM thickness in rat kidneys did not substantially increase hydraulic resistance of the glomerular capillary wall.

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