4.5 Article

Development of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for urinary thiazide-sensitive Na-Cl cotransporter measurement

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-RENAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 305, 期 9, 页码 F1374-F1381

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajprenal.00208.2013

关键词

WNK kinase; hypertension; pseudohypoaldosteronism type II; exosome

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  2. Health Labor Science Research Grant from the Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare
  3. Salt Science Research Foundation [1026, 1228]
  4. Takeda Science Foundation
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22390168, 24790836] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Na-Cl cotransporter (NCC) in the distal convoluted tubules in kidney is known to be excreted in urine. However, its clinical significance has not been established because of the lack of quantitative data on urinary NCC. We developed highly sensitive enzymelinked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for urinary total NCC (tNCC) and its active form, phosphorylated NCC (pNCC). We first measured the excretion of tNCC and pT55-NCC in urinary exosomes in pseudohypoaldosteronism type II (PHAII) patients since PHAII is caused by NCC activation. Highly increased excretion of tNCC and pNCC was observed in PHAII patients. In contrast, the levels of tNCC and pNCC in the urine of patients with Gitelman's syndrome were not detectable or very low, indicating that both assays could specifically detect the changes in urinary NCC excretion caused by the changes of NCC activity in the kidney. Then, to test whether these assays could be feasible for a more general patient population, we measured tNCC and pNCC in the urine of outpatients with different clinical backgrounds. Although urinary protein levels >30 mg/dl interfered with our ELISA, we could measure urinary pNCC in all patients without proteinuria. Thus we established highly sensitive and quantitative assays for urinary NCC, which could be valuable tools for estimating NCC activity in vivo.

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