3.8 Article

Renal Microcirculation and Calcium Channel Subtypes

期刊

CURRENT HYPERTENSION REVIEWS
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 182-186

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1573402110666140131160617

关键词

Afferent arterioles; efferent arterioles; glomerular pressure; renal injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has recently been reported that voltage-dependent Ca channel subtypes, e.g., L-, T-, N-, and P/Q-type, are expressed in renal arterioles and renal tubules, and the inhibition of these channels exerts various effects on renal microcirculation. For example, selective blockade of L-type Ca channels with nifedipine preferentially dilates the afferent arteriole and potentially induces glomerular hypertension. On the other hand, recently developed Ca channel blockers (CCBs) such as mibefradil and efonidipine block both T-type and L-type Ca channels and consequently dilate both afferent and efferent arterioles, leading to lowering of intraglomerular pressure. Interestingly, aldosterone has recently been recognized as a factor exacerbating renal diseases, and its secretion from adrenal gland is mediated by T-type Ca channels. Furthermore, T-type CCBs were shown to ameliorate renal dysfunction by suppressing inflammatory processes and renin secretion. On the basis of histological evaluations, N-type Ca channels are present in peripheral nerve terminals innervating both afferent and efferent arterioles. Further, it was suggested that N-type CCBs such as cilnidipine suppress renal arteriolar constriction induced by enhanced sympathetic nerve activity, thereby lowering intraglomerular pressure. Taken together, various Ca channel subtypes are present in the kidney and blockade of selective channels with distinct CCBs exerts diverse effects on renal microcirculation. Inhibition of T-type and N-type Ca channels with CCBs is anticipated to exert pleiotropic effects that would retard the progression of chronic kidney disease through modulation of renal hemodynamic and non-hemodynamic processes.

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

3.8
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