4.4 Article

In vitro investigation of renal epithelial injury suggests that primary cilium length is regulated by hypoxia-inducible mechanisms

期刊

CELL BIOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 909-913

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/CBI20090154

关键词

albuminuria; cobalt chloride; epithelium; hypoxia; hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha; MDCK; primary cilia; renal injury; tumour necrosis factor alpha

资金

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award
  2. Rotary Club of Wodonga
  3. Australian Chapter of the PKD Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Primary cilia are non-motile sensory organelles that project from cells in many tissues. The role of renal primary cilium-based signalling in regulating epithelial cell proliferation and differentiation is highlighted by studies showing that defects of the cilium lead to epithelial de-differentiation, over proliferation and polycystic kidney disease. Recent studies show that renal primary cilia may also play a role in controlling epithelial differentiation during renal repair. After injury, renal cilium length increases dramatically and then undergoes a normalization that coincides with structural and functional repair in both human patients and mouse models of renal injury. These changes in cilium length are likely to modulate cilium-based signalling, but the injury-related factors that influence renal primary cilium length have yet to be determined. Here, we investigated the effect of three factors commonly associated with renal injury on renal cilium length in an in vitro setting., MOCK (Madin Darby canine kidney) cell cultures bearing primary cilia were treated with BSA to simulate albuminuria, cobalt chloride to simulate hypoxia and :he inflammation-related cytokine tumour necrosis factor alpha. Primary cilium length was only increased in cultures treated with cobalt chloride. Our results suggest a role for hypoxia and the induction of HIF-1 alpha (hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha) in increasing renal primary cilium length following renal injury.

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

4.4
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