4.5 Article

The Role of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in the Functional Improvement of Chronic Renal Failure

期刊

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 521-529

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2008.0097

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The most commonly used therapeutic targets in nephrology are the reduction of injury, the delay of progression, or renal replacement therapy. Many animal and human studies demonstrated the role of stem cells in repair and regenerations of kidney. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have shown to improve outcome of acute renal injury models. It is controversial whether MSCs can reduce injury following a toxic/ischemic event and delay renal failure in chronic kidney disease. We evaluated the hypothesis that the treatment with MSCs could improve renal function and attenuate injury in chronic renal failure (CRF). Sprague -Dawley female rats (8 weeks old, 182.2 +/- 7.2 g) underwent modified 5/6 nephrectomy. Rats in the MSC group received an injection of MSCs (1 x 106 cells) via tail vein 1 day after nephrectomy. Blood and urine samples were collected after 7 days and every month thereafter. The kidneys of rats were removed for histologic evaluation after 24-h urine collection and blood sampling. The Y-chromosome stain using fluorescent in situ hybridization was performed to verify the presence of male MSCs in the kidney of female recipients. No significant differences in blood urea nitrogen and creatinine concentration were observed between the MSC group and the untreated CRF group. However, the weight gain in the MSC group was greater than those in the CRF group after 4 months. Proteinuria in the MSC group was less than that in the CRF group over time. Y chromosome was detected in the kidney of MSC group. Although no significances were observed between these two groups, the histologic analysis suggests that MSCs have positive effect against glomerulosclerosis. These results suggest that MSCs help preserve renal function and attenuate renal injury in CRF.

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