3.9 Article

Glomerular basement membrane alterations induced by gentamicin administration in rats

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL AND TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
卷 60, 期 1, 页码 69-75

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.etp.2008.02.007

关键词

gentamicin; nephrotoxicity; glomerular basement membrane; morphometry; rats

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The widespread therapeutic use of the aminoglycoside antibiotic gentamicin (GM) is limited by its nephrotoxic side effect, which can lead to acute renal failure. This study aimed at examining effects of high, supratherapeutic doses of gentamicin on morphological, structural and functional alterations of the glomerular basement membrane in adult rats. Experiments were done on 30 male Wistar rats, divided into two experimental groups. GM-group (20 rats) received gentamicin at a dose of 100 mg/kg intraperitoneally during eight consecutive days. Control or C-group (10 rats) received 1 ml/day saline intraperitoneally. For histological analysis, 5 mu m thick sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE), periodic acid Schiff (PAS), and Jones methenamine silver. Glomerular basement membrane thickness, glomerular area, major and minor axes, perimeter, diameter, roundness and mean optical density were analyzed. Biochemical analyses were used to determine concentrations of blood urea, serum creatinine, sodium and potassium. In GM-group rats, glomeruli were larger and glomerular basement membrane was diffusely and irregularly thickened with neutrophil cell infiltration. Glomerular area, major axis, minor axis, diameter and perimeter were significantly higher in GM-group compared to C-group rats. Opposite to this, glomerular optical density and average roundness were larger in C-group than in gentamicin-treated animals. Our results clearly showed morphological and structural alterations of glomeruli and glomerular basement membrane as well as alterations of proximal tubules in adult rats exposed to high doses of gentamicin. (c) 2008 Elsevier GmbH. 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

3.9
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