4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Role of water channels in fluid transport studied by phenotype analysis of aquaporin knockout mice

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 85, 期 -, 页码 233S-241S

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-445X.2000.tb00028.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL59198, HL51854] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK35124] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL051854, R01HL059198] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK035124, R37DK035124] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aquaporin-type water channels are expressed widely in mammalian tissues, particularly in the kidney, lung, eye and gastrointestinal tract. To define the role of aquaporins in organ physiology, we have generated and analysed transgenic mice lacking aquaporins (AQP) 1, 3, 4 and 5. Multiple phenotype abnormalities were found in the null mice. For example, in kidney, deletion of AQP1 or AQP3 produced marked polyuria whereas AQP4 deletion produced only a mild concentrating defect. Deletion of AQP5, the apical membrane water channel in the salivary gland, caused defective saliva production. Deletion of AQP1 or AQP5, water channels in lung endothelia and epithelia, resulted in a 90% decrease in airspace-capillary water permeability. In the brain, deletion of AQP4 conferred marked protection From brain swelling induced by acute water intoxication and ischaemic stroke. The general paradigm that has emerged from these phenotype studies is that aquaporins facilitate rapid near-isosmolar transepithelial fluid absorption/secretion, as well as rapid vectorial water movement driven by osmotic gradients. However, we have found many examples in which the tissue-specific expression of an aquaporin is not associated with any apparent phenotypic abnormality. The physiological data on aquaporin null mice suggest the utility of aquaporin blockers and aquaporin gene replacement in selected 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

4.3
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