BACKGROUND: Multiple parenteral iron (Fe) formulations exist for administration to patients with end-stage renal disease. Although there are concerns regarding their potential toxicities, no direct in vitro comparisons of these agents exist. Thus, the present study contrasted pro-oxidant and cytotoxic potentials of four available Fe preparations: Fe dextran (Fe dext), Fe sucrose (Fe sucr), Fe gluconate (Fe gluc), and Fe oligosaccharide (Fe OS). METHODS: Differing dosages (0.06 to 1 mg/mL) of each compound were added to either (1) isolated mouse proximal tubule segments, (2) renal cortical homogenates, or (3) cultured human proximal tubule (HK-2) cells (0.5- to 72-hour incubations). Oxidant injury (malondialdehyde generation) and lethal cell injury (percentage of lactate dehydrogenase release; tetrazolium dye uptake) were assessed. Effects of selected antioxidants (glutathione [GSH], catalase, dimethylthiourea (DMTU), and sodium benzoate also were assessed. RESULTS: Each test agent induced massive and similar degrees of lipid peroxidation. Nevertheless, marked differences in cell death resulted (Fe sucr >> Fe gluc > Fe dext approximately Fe OS). This relative toxicity profile also was observed in cultured aortic endothelial cells. Catalase, DMTU, and sodium benzoate conferred no protection. However, GSH and its constituent amino acid glycine blocked Fe sucr-mediated cell death. The latter was mediated by mitochondrial blockade, causing free radical generation and a severe adenosine triphosphate depletion state. CONCLUSIONS: (1) parenteral Fes are highly potent pro-oxidants and capable of inducing tubular and endothelial cell death, (2) markedly different toxicity profiles exist among these agents, and (3) GSH can exert protective effects. However, the latter stems from GSH's glycine content, rather than from a direct antioxidant effect. Copyright 2002 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Multiple parenteral iron (Fe) formulations exist for administration to patients with end-stage renal disease. Although there are concerns regarding their potential toxicities, no direct in vitro comparisons of these agents exist. Thus, the present study contrasted pro-oxidant and cytotoxic potentials of four available Fe preparations: Fe dextran (Fe dext), Fe sucrose (Fe sucr), Fe gluconate (Fe gluc), and Fe oligosaccharide (Fe OS). METHODS: Differing dosages (0.06 to 1 mg/mL) of each compound were added to either (1) isolated mouse proximal tubule segments, (2) renal cortical homogenates, or (3) cultured human proximal tubule (HK-2) cells (0.5- to 72-hour incubations). Oxidant injury (malondialdehyde generation) and lethal cell injury (percentage of lactate dehydrogenase release; tetrazolium dye uptake) were assessed. Effects of selected antioxidants (glutathione [GSH], catalase, dimethylthiourea (DMTU), and sodium benzoate also were assessed. RESULTS: Each test agent induced massive and similar degrees of lipid peroxidation. Nevertheless, marked differences in cell death resulted (Fe sucr >> Fe gluc > Fe dext approximately Fe OS). This relative toxicity profile also was observed in cultured aortic endothelial cells. Catalase, DMTU, and sodium benzoate conferred no protection. However, GSH and its constituent amino acid glycine blocked Fe sucr-mediated cell death. The latter was mediated by mitochondrial blockade, causing free radical generation and a severe adenosine triphosphate depletion state. CONCLUSIONS: (1) parenteral Fes are highly potent pro-oxidants and capable of inducing tubular and endothelial cell death, (2) markedly different toxicity profiles exist among these agents, and (3) GSH can exert protective effects. However, the latter stems from GSH's glycine content, rather than from a direct antioxidant effect. Copyright 2002 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
Authors: Sourabh Chand; Douglas G Ward; Zhi-Yan Valerie Ng; James Hodson; Heidi Kirby; Patricia Steele; Irina Rooplal; Ferly Bantugon; Tariq Iqbal; Chris Tselepis; Mark T Drayson; Alison Whitelegg; Marie Chowrimootoo; Richard Borrows Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 3.902
Authors: Richard A Zager; Vallabh O Shah; Hemangini V Shah; Philip G Zager; Ali C M Johnson; Sherry Hanson Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Hassan N Ibrahim; Robert N Foley; Rui Zhang; David T Gilbertson; Allan J Collins Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 8.237