4.5 Article

Moderate hyperuricaemia ameliorated kidney damage in a low-renin model of experimental renal insufficiency

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.13806

关键词

experimental renal insufficiency; hyperuricaemia; kidney morphology; oxonic acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental hyperuricaemia had positive effects on the kidney of surgically 5/6 nephrectomized rats, showing improved kidney morphology and reduced markers of oxidative stress and inflammation.
Uric acid has promoted renal fibrosis and inflammation in experimental studies, but some studies have shown nephroprotective effects due to alleviated oxidative stress. We studied the influence of experimental hyperuricaemia in surgically 5/6 nephrectomized rats. Three weeks after subtotal nephrectomy or sham operation, the rats were allocated to control diet or 2.0% oxonic acid (uricase inhibitor) diet for 9 weeks. Then blood, urine and tissue samples were taken, and renal morphology and oxidative stress were examined. Inflammation and fibrosis were evaluated using immunohistochemistry and real-time PCR (RT-PCR). Remnant kidney rats ingesting normal or oxonic acid diet presented with similar to 60% reduction of creatinine clearance and suppressed plasma renin activity. Oxonic acid diet increased plasma uric acid levels by >80 mu mol/L. In remnant kidney rats, moderate hyperuricaemia decreased glomerulosclerosis, tubulointerstitial damage and kidney mast cell count, without influencing the fibrosis marker collagen I messenger RNA (mRNA) content. In both sham-operated and 5/6 nephrectomized rats, the mast cell product 11-epi-prostaglandin-F-2 alpha excretion to the urine and kidney tissue cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) levels were decreased. To conclude, hyperuricaemic remnant kidney rats displayed improved kidney morphology and reduced markers of oxidative stress and inflammation. Thus, moderately elevated plasma uric acid had beneficial effects on the kidney in this low-renin model of experimental renal insufficiency.

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