4.7 Article

Regulated necrosis and failed repair in cisplatin-induced chronic kidney disease

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 797-814

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.kint.2018.11.042

关键词

cisplatin CKD; failed repair; regulated necrosis

资金

  1. [RC1D086465]
  2. [RC1DK086402]
  3. [RO1DK081037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cisplatin is an effective chemotherapeutic agent, but significant nephrotoxicity limits its clinical use. Despite extensive investigation of the acute cellular and molecular responses to cisplatin, the mechanisms of progression from acute to chronic kidney injury have not been explored. We used functional and morphological metrics to establish a time-point when the transition from acute and reversible kidney injury to chronic and irreparable kidney disease is clearly established. In mice administered 1 or 2 doses of intraperitoneal cisplatin separated by 2 weeks, kidney function returned toward baseline two weeks after the first dose, but failed to return to normal two weeks following a second dose. Multiphoton microscopy revealed increased glomerular epithelial and proximal tubular damage in kidneys exposed to two doses of cisplatin compared with those exposed to a single dose. In contrast, there was no evidence of fibrosis, macrophage invasion, or decrease in endothelial cell mass in chronically diseased kidneys. Pathway analysis of microarray data revealed regulated necrosis as a key determinant in the development of chronic kidney disease after cisplatin administration. Western blot analysis demonstrated activation of proteins involved in necroptosis and increased expression of kidney injury markers, cellular stress response regulators, and upstream activators of regulated necrosis, including Toll-like receptors 2 and 4. These data suggest that unresolved injury and sustained activation of regulated necrosis pathways, rather than fibrosis, promote the progression of cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury to chronic kidney disease.

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