4.3 Review

Tipping the balance from angiogenesis to fibrosis in CKD

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL SUPPLEMENTS
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 45-52

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/kisup.2014.9

关键词

angiogenesis; capillary dropout; fibrosis; hypoxia; rarefaction; shear stress

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP 641814]
  2. Kidney Foundation of Canada
  3. Pfizer Cardiovascular Program
  4. Major State Basic Research Development Program of China [2012CB517700]
  5. Guangdong Medical Association
  6. Division of Nephrology at the University of Alberta

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic progressive renal fibrosis leads to end-stage renal failure in many patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Loss of the rich peritubular capillary network is a prominent feature, and seems independent of the specific underlying disease. The mechanisms that contribute to peritubular capillary regression include the loss of glomerular perfusion, as flow-dependent shear forces are required to provide the survival signal for endothelial cells. Also, reduced endothelial cell survival signals from sclerotic glomeruli and atrophic or injured tubule epithelial cells contribute to peritubular capillary regression. In response to direct tubular epithelial cell injury, and the inflammatory reaction that ensues, capillary pericytes dissociate from their blood vessels, also reducing endothelial cell survival. In addition, direct inflammatory injury of capillary endothelial cells, for instance in chronic allograft nephropathy, also contributes to capillary dropout. Chronic tissue hypoxia, which ensues from the rarefaction of the peritubular capillary network, can generate both an angiogenic and a fibrogenic response. However, in CKD, the balance is strongly tipped toward fibrogenesis. Understanding the underlying mechanisms for failed angiogenesis in CKD and harnessing endothelial-specific survival and pro-angiogenic mechanisms for therapy should be our goal if we are to reduce the disease burden from CKD.

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

4.3
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