4.7 Review

Pathogenesis of renal ischemia/reperfusion injury: lessons from knockout mice

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 74, 期 5, 页码 543-552

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2003.08.001

关键词

ischemia; hypoxia; reperfusion; intracellular calcium; renal proximal tubular cells; knockout mice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ischemia/reperfusion-induced acute renal failure is a common clinical problem associated with a high morbidity and mortality. Upon hypoxic injury, the depletion of ATP causes mitochondrial dysfunction, and accumulation of intracellular sodium, calcium and reactive oxygen species. Subsequently, multiple enzyme systems including proteases, nitric oxide synthases, phospholipases and endonuclease are activated and responsible for cytoskeleton disruption, membrane damage, and DNA degradation, and eventually cell death. Ischemia/reperfusion injury also activates complement, cytokines, and chemokines, which are cytotoxic themselves, but also attract leukocytes into the ischemic area to cause further damage. The vascular endothelial cell injury and dysfunction prolong ischemia and induce vascular congestion, edema, and further infiltration of inflammatory cells. Many players in renal ischemia/reperfusion injury and their mechanisms have been investigated using genetically manipulated mouse models. In this review, we focus on the information gathered from these studies. Deficiency of the Na/Ca exchanger, inducible nitric oxide synthase, Caspase-1, A3 adenosine receptor, C3, C5, C6, Factor B, or medkine protects the kidney against I/R injury. Conversely, deficiency of the interleukin-1 receptor, osteopontin, C4, or recombination activation gene-1 is not protective, while the absence of adrenomedullin or endothelin receptor B delays the recovery of ischemia/reperfusion injury. The knowledge obtained from these studies provides new direction for designing potential therapeutic agents for treating ischemia/reperfusion injury. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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