4.6 Article

A Drosophila Model Identifies a Critical Role for Zinc in Mineralization for Kidney Stone Disease

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124150

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Federation for Aging Research
  2. California Urology Foundation
  3. National Institutes of Health [R01 AG038012, RO1 AG038688, R21 DK091727, P20 DK100863-01]
  4. AUA Foundation Research Scholars Program
  5. Boston Scientific Corporation
  6. Endourological Society
  7. Friends of Joe
  8. Multidisciplinary K12 Urologic Research Career Development Program [K12-DK-07-006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ectopic calcification is a driving force for a variety of diseases, including kidney stones and atherosclerosis, but initiating factors remain largely unknown. Given its importance in seemingly divergent disease processes, identifying fundamental principal actors for ectopic calcification may have broad translational significance. Here we establish a Drosophila melanogaster model for ectopic calcification by inhibiting xanthine dehydrogenase whose deficiency leads to kidney stones in humans and dogs. Micro X-ray absorption near edge spectroscopy (mu XANES) synchrotron analyses revealed high enrichment of zinc in the Drosophila equivalent of kidney stones, which was also observed in human kidney stones and Randall's plaques (early calcifications seen in human kidneys thought to be the precursor for renal stones). To further test the role of zinc in driving mineralization, we inhibited zinc transporter genes in the ZnT family and observed suppression of Drosophila stone formation. Taken together, genetic, dietary, and pharmacologic interventions to lower zinc confirm a critical role for zinc in driving the process of heterogeneous nucleation that eventually leads to stone formation. Our findings open a novel perspective on the etiology of urinary stones and related diseases, which may lead to the identification of new preventive and therapeutic approaches.

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

4.6
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