4.5 Review

Assessment of renal autoregulation

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-RENAL PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 292, Issue 4, Pages F1105-F1123

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajprenal.00194.2006

Keywords

renal blood flow; myogenic mechanism; tubuloglomerular feedback; interaction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The kidney displays highly efficient autoregulation so that under steady-state conditions renal blood flow (RBF) is independent of blood pressure over a wide range of pressure. Autoregulation occurs in the preglomerular microcirculation and is mediated by two, perhaps three, mechanisms. The faster myogenic mechanism and the slower tubuloglomerular feedback contribute both directly and interactively to autoregulation of RBF and of glomerular capillary pressure. Multiple experiments have been used to study autoregulation and can be considered as variants of two basic designs. The first measures RBF after multiple stepwise changes in renal perfusion pressure to assess how a biological condition or experimental maneuver affects the overall pressure-flow relationship. The second uses time-series analysis to better understand the operation of multiple controllers operating in parallel on the same vascular smooth muscle. There are conceptual and experimental limitations to all current experimental designs so that no one design adequately describes autoregulation. In particular, it is clear that the efficiency of autoregulation varies with time and that most current techniques do not adequately address this issue. Also, the time-varying and nonadditive interaction between the myogenic mechanism and tubuloglomerular feedback underscores the difficulty of dissecting their contributions to autoregulation. We consider the modulation of autoregulation by nitric oxide and use it to illustrate the necessity for multiple experimental designs, often applied iteratively.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available