4.5 Article

Early upregulation of iNOS mRNA expression and increase in NO metabolites in pressurized renal epithelial cells

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-RENAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 293, 期 6, 页码 F1877-F1888

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajprenal.00238.2007

关键词

unilateral ureteral obstruction; nitric oxide; cyclic guanosine monophosphate; inducible nitric oxide synthase; cytokine mix

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK-58355] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pressure is an important physiological regulator, but under abnormal conditions it may be a critical factor in the onset and progression of disease in many organs. In vivo, proximal tubular epithelial cells are subjected to pressure as a result of ureteral obstruction, which may influence the production of nitric oxide ( NO), a ubiquitous multifunctional cytokine. To directly explore the effect of pressure on the expression and activity of NO synthase ( NOS) in cultured proximal tubular epithelial cells, a novel pressure apparatus was developed. Cells were subjected to pressures of 20-120 mmHg over time ( 5 min-72 h). RT-PCR demonstrated an increase in inducible NOS (iNOS) and sGC, while endothelial NOS remained unchanged. Real-time PCR (qPCR) confirmed an earlier induction of iNOS transcript subjected to 60 mmHg compared with cytokine mix. iNOS protein expression was significantly increased following 60 mmHg of pressure for 24 h. Use of nuclear factor-kappa B inhibitors was shown to prevent the increase in iNOS expression following 60 mmHg for 2 h. NO and cGMP were increased with the application of pressure. The addition of the irreversible iNOS inhibitor (1400W) was shown to prevent this increase. We demonstrate that with the use of a simply designed apparatus, pressure led to an extremely early induction of iNOS and a rapid activation of NOS activity to increase NO and cGMP in proximal tubule epithelial cells. The rapid effects of pressure on iNOS may have important implications in the obstructed kidney.

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