4.4 Article

Renal Resistive Index as a Novel Indicator for Renal Complications in High-Fat Diet-Fed Mice

期刊

KIDNEY & BLOOD PRESSURE RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 1128-1140

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000485781

关键词

Renal injury; Resistive index; Renal fibrosis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81500720, 81303109]
  2. Health Bureau Technology Fund of Tianjin [2014KZ092]
  3. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20113250120006]
  4. Natural Science Fund of Yangzhou City [YZ2014047]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: The renal resistive index (RI) is a novel candidate as a renal injury prognostic indicator, but it remains unclear how renal RI levels correspond to renal injury in diabetic nephropathy. Methods: To examine this issue, we compared 8-week-old male C57BL/6 mice fed with high-fat diet (HFD) versus chow diet (CHD) for 16 weeks. At 8 and 12 weeks, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), and inflammatory factors (IL-1 beta, IL-6, TNF alpha, and MCP-1) were measured, along with the increase in renal RI. Results: Our study suggests RI values positively correlate with GFR for the first 12 weeks of HFD feeding. In contrast, the GFR of 16-week HFD feeding is lower than that of 12-week HFD feeding, whereas RI levels are significantly increased. Additionally, our study suggests RI values accurately indicate the renal fibrosis and renal injury in HFD-fed mice treated with lovastatin. Conclusion: This study seems to confirm the utility of a noninvasive and repeatable ultrasound parameter to rapidly evaluate renal fibrosis in a HFD-induced type 2 diabetic mouse model in vivo. This highly sensitive and comparable renal RI measurement could monitor the whole procedure of disease development in real-time. RI measurement of the renal artery is capable of differentiating responses to standard therapy with lovastatin in HFD-fed mice from the CHD group. (C) 2017 The Author(s) Published by S.Karger AG, Basel

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

4.4
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