4.7 Article

Dragon Enhances BMP Signaling and Increases Transepithelial Resistance in Kidney Epithelial Cells

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2009050511

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [RO1 DK-071837, RO1 DK-069533, DK-42956, R03HD60641, K08 DK-075846]
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R03HD060641] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL104040] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK069533, K08DK075846, R01DK071837, R01DK042956, R56DK042956, P30DK043351, R37DK042956] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The neuronal adhesion protein Dragon acts as a bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) coreceptor that enhances BMP signaling. Given the importance of BMP signaling in nephrogenesis and its putative role in the response to injury in the adult kidney, we studied the localization and function of Dragon in the kidney. We observed that Dragon localized predominantly to the apical surfaces of tubular epithelial cells in the thick ascending limbs, distal convoluted tubules, and collecting ducts of mice. Dragon expression was weak in the proximal tubules and glomeruli. In mouse inner medullary collecting duct (mIMCD3) cells, Dragon generated BMP signals in a ligand-dependent manner, and BMP4 is the predominant endogenous ligand for the Dragon coreceptor. In mIMCD3 cells, BMP4 normally signaled through BMPRII, but Dragon enhanced its signaling through the BMP type II receptor ActRIIA. Dragon and BMP4 increased transepithelial resistance (TER) through the Smad1/5/8 pathway. In epithelial cells isolated from the proximal tubule and intercalated cells of collecting ducts, we observed coexpression of ActRIIA, Dragon, and BMP4 but not BMPRII. Taken together, these results suggest that Dragon may enhance BMP signaling in renal tubular epithelial cells and maintain normal renal physiology.

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

4.7
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