4.5 Article

Gypenosides inhibit renal fibrosis by regulating expression of related genes in rats with unilateral ureteral obstruction

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 112-118

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.5301/JN.2010.1944

关键词

Fibrogenesis; Growth factors; Gypenosides; Renal failure

资金

  1. Hubei Health Department of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-beta 1), connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) and Smad7 are potent components of fibrogenesis-related signal transduction pathways. Renal fibrosis is the major pathological change in the rat models with unilateral ureteral obstruction (UUO). Investigating the effects of gypenosides (GPs) on the expression of fibrogenesis-related genes in the UUO model may lead to the development of effective therapy for renal diseases. Methods: Rats were randomly divided into 3 experimental groups: (i) sham operation rats treated with saline (sham group), (ii) UUO model rats treated with saline (control group) and (iii) UUO model rats treated with GPs (GPs group). Blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine were detected as the measurement of renal function. UUO-treated kidney tissues were taken for assessment of renal damage index and determination of related gene expression through immunohistochemistry and RT-PCR. Results: UUO-induced tubulointerstitial damage and fibrosis were attenuated by the application of GPs (day 3 and day 7, p<0.01; day 14, p<0.05). The expression of TGF-beta 1 and CTGF was significantly reduced with GPs treatment (TGF-beta 1, p<0.01; CTGF, p<0.05). Smad7 expression was elevated with GPs treatment at days 7 and 14 (p<0.01). GPs' protective effects on renal function were also demonstrated with this UUO model. Conclusions: These results suggest that UUO-induced tubulointerstitial fibrosis can be effectively attenuated by GPs application. GPs-mediated down-regulation of TGF-beta 1 and CTGF and up-regulation of Smad7 are essential for their effects of antifibrogenesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据