4.7 Article

Morphological Processes of Foot Process Effacement in Puromycin Aminonucleoside Nephrosis Revealed by FIB/SEM Tomography

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2018020139

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (MEXT) [15K18960, 17K08521]
  2. Foundation of Strategic Research Projects in Private Universities from the MEXT [S1311011, S1101009]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K08521, 15K18960] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Foot process effacement is one of the pathologic indicators of podocyte injury. However, the morphologic changes associated with it remain unclear. Methods To clarify the developmental process, we analyzed puromycin nephrotic podocytes reconstructed from serial focused-ion beam/scanning electron microscopy (FIB/SEM) images. Results Intact podocytes consisted of four subcellular compartments: cell body, primary process, ridgelike prominence (RLP), and foot process. The RLP, a longitudinal protrusion from the basal surface of the cell body and primary process, served as an adhesive apparatus for the cell body and primary process to attach to the glomerular basement membrane. Foot processes protruded from both sides of the RLP. In puromycin nephrotic podocytes, foot process effacement occurred in two ways: by type-1 retraction, where the foot processes retracted while maintaining their rounded tips; or type-2 retraction, where they narrowed across their entire lengths, tapering toward the tips. Puromycin nephrotic podocytes also exhibited several alterations associated with foot process effacement, such as deformation of the cell body, retraction of RLPs, and cytoplasmic fragmentation. Finally, podocytes were reorganized into a broad, flattened shape. Conclusions The three-dimensional reconstruction of podocytes by serial FIB/SEM images revealed the morphologic changes involved in foot process effacement in greater detail than previously described.

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