4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Lineage-Negative Bone Marrow Cells Protect Against Chronic Renal Failure

期刊

STEM CELLS
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 682-692

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/stemcells.2008-0496

关键词

Hematopoietic stem cells; Nephrectomy; Kidney failure; Chronic proteinuria; Fibrosis/pathology; Proliferating cell nuclear antigen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Progressive renal failure continues to be a challenge. The use of bone marrow cells represents a means of meeting that challenge. We used lineage-negative (Lin(-)) cells to test the hypothesis that Lin(-) cell treatment decreases renal injury. Syngeneic Fischer 344 rats were divided into four groups: sham ( laparotomy only, untreated); Nx (five-sixth nephrectomy and untreated); NxLC1 (five-sixth nephrectomy and receiving 2 x 10(6) Lin(-) cells on postnephrectomy day 15); and NxLC3 (five-sixth nephrectomy and receiving 2 x 10(6) Lin(-) cells on postnephrectomy days 15, 30, and 45). On postoperative day 16, renal mRNA expression of interleukin (IL)-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and IL-6 was lower in NxLC rats than in Nx rats. On postnephrectomy day 60, NxLC rats presented less proteinuria, glomerulosclerosis, anemia, renal infiltration of immune cells, and protein expression of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, as well as decreased interstitial area. Immunostaining for proliferating cell nuclear antigen showed that, in comparison with sham rats, Nx rats presented greater cell proliferation, whereas NxLC1 rats and NxLC3 rats presented less cell proliferation than did Nx rats. Protein expression of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21 and of vascular endothelial growth factor increased after nephrectomy and decreased after Lin(-) cell treatment. On postnephrectomy day 120, renal function (inulin clearance) was significantly better in Lin(-) cell-treated rats than in untreated rats. Lin(-) cell treatment significantly improved survival. These data suggest that Lin(-) cell treatment protects against chronic renal failure. STEM CELLS 2009; 27: 682-692

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