4.2 Article

Podocyte loss in aging OVE26 diabetic mice

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ar.20625

Keywords

podocytes; diabetic mice; electron microscopy; morphometry

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK072032] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK072032] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent studies show that podocyte nuclear density (N-v) and numbers of renal podocytes per glomerulus (N) are altered in experimental and spontaneous diabetes mellitus. N-v and N are generally reduced, and it has been hypothesized that these morphological changes may relate to the loss of glomerular permselectivity in diabetic nephropathy (DN). In the current study, OVE26 transgenic diabetic mice and age-matched (FVB) controls (60, 150, or 450 days) were fixed by vascular perfusion and renal cortical tissues were prepared for morphometric analyses. ImageJ software and point counting analyses were carried out on light and transmission electron micrographs to determine glomerular volume (V-G), N-v, and N. As expected, mean V-G in OVE26 mice increased substantially (similar to 134%) over the course of the study and was significantly increased over FVB mice at all ages. At 60 days, Nv and N were not statistically distinguishable in OVE26 and control mice, while at 150 days, N-V was significantly reduced in diabetics but not N. In 450-day-old OVE26 animals, however, Nv and N were both significantly decreased (similar to 231% and similar to 99%, respectively) relative to age-matched FVB mice. These data suggest that in the OVE26 model of diabetes, significant podocyte loss occurs relatively late in the course of the disease. Moreover, it seems possible that these podocytic changes could play a role in sustaining the increased permeability of the blood-urine barrier in the later stages of diabetic renal decompensation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available