4.6 Review

The Role of Parietal Epithelial Cells in the Pathogenesis of Podocytopathy

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.832772

关键词

parietal epithelial cells; podocyte; signaling pathway; podocytopathy; glomerular

资金

  1. Funds for Science and Technology Innovation Strategy of Guangdong Province [2019A1515010678, 2018A030313231, 2021A1515011581]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81700627, 81670654, 81974095]
  3. Science and Technology Planning Project of Zhanjiang City [2018A01040, 2018A01034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Podocytopathy is a common feature of glomerular disorder characterized by excessive proteinuria caused by podocyte injury or dysfunction, leading to glomerulosclerosis and renal function loss. The self-renewal ability of podocytes is limited, and mild podocyte depletion triggers replacement and repair processes driven by stem cells or PECs. Activated PECs contribute to the establishment of glomerular lesions when podocyte recovery fails.
Podocytopathy is the most common feature of glomerular disorder characterized by podocyte injury- or dysfunction-induced excessive proteinuria, which ultimately develops into glomerulosclerosis and results in persistent loss of renal function. Due to the lack of self-renewal ability of podocytes, mild podocyte depletion triggers replacement and repair processes mostly driven by stem cells or resident parietal epithelial cells (PECs). In contrast, when podocyte recovery fails, activated PECs contribute to the establishment of glomerular lesions. Increasing evidence suggests that PECs, more than just bystanders, have a crucial role in various podocytopathies, including minimal change disease, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, membranous nephropathy, diabetic nephropathy, IgA nephropathy, and lupus podocytopathy. In this review, we attempt to dissect the diverse role of PECs in the pathogenesis of podocytopathy based on currently available information.

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

4.6
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