4.6 Article

A porcine model of calcium oxalate kidney stone disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 171, 期 3, 页码 1301-1303

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000110101.41653.bb

关键词

kidney; kidney calculi; swine; calcium oxalate; diet

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R21-DK062739-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [R01-30579] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The pig has been extensively used in biomedical research because of the similarities in organ structure and function to humans. It is desirable to have an animal model of oxaluria and urolithiasis with physiological, anatomical and nutritional characteristics that more closely resemble those of man. In this study we determined if feeding pigs trans-4-hydroxy-L-proline (HP) increased urine oxalate levels and if it would serve as a model for human hyperoxaluria and stone disease. Materials and Methods: Male Yorkshire-Durox cross-bred pigs were fed HP for up to 20 days. Urine was periodically collected and analyzed for oxalate levels and the presence of crystalluria. After 20 days of feeding the kidneys were removed and examined grossly and microscopically for indications of injury, crystal deposition and stone formation. Results: Feeding pigs 10% HP (weight per weight HP/food) produced hyperoxaluria, which reached a maximum and leveled off by day 6. Urine oxalate remained near this level until the study ended at 20 days regardless of the further increase in HP to 20% of the weight of the food. When the kidneys were removed and grossly examined, calcium oxalate encrustations were observed on multiple papillary tips. Histopathological observation of the papillary tissue showed tissue injury and crystal deposition. Conclusions: Pigs fed HP have hyperoxaluria and calcium oxalate crystalluria, and calcium oxalate papillary deposits form that may be precursors of kidney stones. The use of the pig as a model of human hyperoxaluria and stone formation should prove ideal for studies of these human diseases.

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

4.6
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