4.5 Article

Evaluation of JNK Blockade as an Early Intervention Treatment for Type 1 Diabetic Nephropathy in Hypertensive Rats

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 337-346

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000331058

关键词

Diabetic nephropathy; Cell signaling; Albuminuria; Inflammation; Hypertension

资金

  1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
  2. Celgene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: The c-Jun amino-terminal kinase (JNK) signaling pathway is activated in human kidney diseases and promotes renal injury in experimental glomerulonephritis. In this study, we examined whether JNK signaling plays a role in the development of diabetic nephropathy or in regulating hypertension, which exacerbates diabetic renal injury. Methods: Diabetes was induced in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) using streptozotocin. At week 16 of diabetes, rats with equivalent hyperglycemia and albuminuria were randomized into groups which received no treatment, vehicle alone or a selective JNK inhibitor (CC-930, 60 mg/kg/bid) for 10 weeks. These rats were assessed for hypertension and progression of renal damage. Results: At week 16, diabetic rats showed increased kidney JNK activation compared with nondiabetic controls. Effective JNK inhibition was demonstrated at week 26 by reductions in c-Jun phosphorylation. CC-930 did not affect blood pressure, kidney hypertrophy, glomerular hyperfiltration, podocyte loss, glomerular fibrosis or tubulointerstitial injury in diabetic SHR. However, CC-930 reduced macrophages and ccl2 mRNA levels in diabetic kidneys. In contrast, CC-930 exacerbated albuminuria at week 26, which was associated with reduced glomerular mRNA levels of the podocyte-specific molecules, nephrin and podocin. Conclusion: JNK inhibition does not prevent the progression of early diabetic renal injury in hypertensive rats, which contrasts with the ability of JNK inhibition to suppress albuminuria and injury in experimental glomerulonephritis. Copyright (C) 2011 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

4.5
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