4.4 Article

Assessment of Kidney Function in Mouse Models of Glomerular Disease

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL OF VISUALIZED EXPERIMENTS
DOI: 10.3791/57764

关键词

Medicine; Issue 136; Glomerular phenotype; mouse models of renal disease; glomerular permeability; glomerular ultra-structure; mechanisms of glomerular function; VEGF-A

资金

  1. British Heart Foundation
  2. Richard Bright VEGF Research Trust
  3. MRC
  4. BBSRC [BB/J007293/1, BB/J007293/2] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of murine models to mimic human kidney disease is becoming increasingly common. Our research is focused on the assessment of glomerular function in diabetic nephropathy and podocyte-specific VEGF-A knock-out mice; therefore, this protocol describes the full kidney work-up used in our lab to assess these mouse models of glomerular disease, enabling a vast amount of information regarding kidney and glomerular function to be obtained from a single mouse. In comparison to alternative methods presented in the literature to assess glomerular function, the use of the method outlined in this paper enables the glomerular phenotype to be fully evaluated from multiple aspects. By using this method, the researcher can determine the kidney phenotype of the model and assess the mechanism as to why the phenotype develops. This vital information on the mechanism of disease is required when examining potential therapeutic avenues in these models. The methods allow for detailed functional assessment of the glomerular filtration barrier through measurement of the urinary albumin creatinine ratio and individual glomerular water permeability, as well as both structural and ultra-structural examination using the Periodic Acid Schiff stain and electron microscopy. Furthermore, analysis of the genes dysregulated at the mRNA and protein level enables mechanistic analysis of glomerular function. This protocol outlines the generic but adaptable methods that can be applied to all mouse models of glomerular disease.

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