4.7 Article

A flexible, multilayered protein scaffold maintains the slit in between glomerular podocytes

期刊

JCI INSIGHT
卷 1, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.86177

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [CRC 1140, CRC 992, FR 1653/3-1/HU 1016/5-1]
  2. European Research Council (ERC)
  3. BMBF [01KU1215, STOP-FSGS 01GM1518C]
  4. Else-Kroner Fresenius Stiftung-NAKSYS
  5. Excellence Initiative of the German Federal Government (GSC-4, Spemann Graduate School)
  6. Excellence Initiative of the German State Government (GSC-4, Spemann Graduate School)
  7. Diabetes Research Institute Foundation
  8. NIH [R01-DK090316, R01-DK104753]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vertebrate life critically depends on renal filtration and excretion of low molecular weight waste products. This process is controlled by a specialized cell-cell contact between podocyte foot processes: the slit diaphragm (SD). Using a comprehensive set of targeted KO mice of key SD molecules, we provided genetic, functional, and high-resolution ultrastructural data highlighting a concept of a flexible, dynamic, and multilayered architecture of the SD. Our data indicate that the mammalian SD is composed of NEPHRIN and NEPH1 molecules, while NEPH2 and NEPH3 do not participate in podocyte intercellular junction formation. Unexpectedly, homo-and heteromeric NEPHRIN/NEPH1 complexes are rarely observed. Instead, single NEPH1 molecules appear to form the lower part of the junction close to the glomerular basement membrane with a width of 23 nm, while single NEPHRIN molecules form an adjacent junction more apically with a width of 45 nm. In both cases, the molecules are quasiperiodically spaced 7 nm apart. These structural findings, in combination with the flexibility inherent to the repetitive Ig folds of NEPHRIN and NEPH1, indicate that the SD likely represents a highly dynamic cell-cell contact that forms an adjustable, nonclogging barrier within the renal filtration apparatus.

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