| Literature DB >> 22852015 |
Marek Saracyn1, Janusz Patera, Janusz Kocik, Marek Brytan, Robert Zdanowski, Arkadiusz Lubas, Wojciech Kozłowski, Zofia Wańkowicz.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pathomechanism of HRS is still poorly understood. The aim of our study was: (1) to test whether different strains of rats could develop typical HRS, and (2) to estimate the influence of activation and inhibition of nitric oxide for development of renal failure in course of HRS.Entities:
Keywords: experimental studies; hepatorenal syndrome; nitric oxide
Year: 2012 PMID: 22852015 PMCID: PMC3400905 DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2012.29281
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Med Sci ISSN: 1734-1922 Impact factor: 3.318
Biochemical profile of liver and renal parameters in WR and SDR
| Group ( | Bils [mg/dl] | ALTs [IU/l] | Ammons [µmol/l] | Creats [mg/dl] | Ureas [mg/dl] | Creat Cl [ml/min] | Urine osmol [mosmol/kg] | Urine sodium [mmol/l] | Osmol Cl [ml/day] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (8) WR sham | 0.24 ±0.08 | 85.25 ±13.41 | 39.12 ±3.47 | 0.41 ±0.05 | 41.5 ±2.9 | 0.48 ±0.05 | 1790 ±128.61 | 33 ±7.5 | 26.6 ±2.9 |
| 2 (8) WR Ga1N | 2.86 ±0.27 | 977.87 ±89.12 | 178.12 ±16.25 | 0.43 ±0.04 | 38.3 ±5.24 | 1.1 ±0.4 | 1509.2 ±265.1 | 97.8 ±26.4 | 52.3 ±14.4 |
| 3 (8) WR 2xGa1N | 3.53 ±1.09 | 11215.5 ±6226.1 | 269 ±111.52 | 0.43 ±0.04 | 35.6 ±3.4 | 1.1 ±0.3 | 1062.7 ±162.7 | 56.6 ±17.2 | 56.6 ±17.9 |
| 4 (8) SDR sham | 0.4 ±0.26 | 56.2 ±9.9 | 52.8 ±38.1 | 0.47 ±0.04 | 33.7 ±3.8 | 0.89 ±0.4 | 1480.7 ±69.3 | 52 ±15.79 | 57.3 ±13.9 |
| 5 (8) SDR Ga1N | 3.43 ±1.35 | 2098.6 ±886.1 | 275.7 ±73.7 | 0.76 ±0.09 | 80.1 ±10.1 | 0.18 ±0.12 | 1528.6 ±95.5 | 46.25 ±12.73 | 24.09 ±10.7 |
| 6 (8) SDR sham L-NAME | 0.28 ±0.17 | 82.2 ±16.2 | 26.9 ±7.8 | 0.46 ±0.04 | 34.2 ±2.27 | 0.81 ±0.29 | 940.9 ±189.1 | 57.75 ±11.15 | 33.8 ±10.3 |
| 7 (8) SDR L-NAME/Ga1N | 3.27 ±0.52 | 1343.75 ±451.92 | 210 ±48.18 | 0.41 ±0.03 | 28.1 ±5.3 | 0.69 ±0.23 | 941.8 ±187.6 | 46.87 ±18.27 | 51.6 ±26.4 |
| 8 (8) SDR Ga1N/L-NAME | 2.58 ±0.46 | 1425 ±475.61 | 206.37 ±51.11 | 0.45 ±0.05 | 37 ±7.3 | 0.47 ±0.22 | 1225.8 ±160.2 | 43.62 ±13.53 | 31.01 ±10.6 |
| 9 (8) SDR sham L-ARG | 0.38 ±0.21 | 53.75 ±7.37 | 50.7 ±46.2 | 0.43 ±0.08 | 25.7 ±4.17 | 1.05 ±0.35 | 1249.1 ±168.06 | 55.4 ±18.64 | 48.2 ±14.1 |
| 10 (8) SDR L-ARG/Ga1N | 2.96 ±0.67 | 1546.37 ±349.75 | 199.12 ±42.8 | 0.72 ±0.11 | 87.1 ±7.5 | 0.17 ±0.12 | 1286.8 ±135.4 | 58.17 ±18.34 | 19.2 ±8.1 |
| 11 (8) SDR Ga1N/L-ARG | 2.86 ±0.94 | 1486.25 ±450.83 | 195.25 ±41.69 | 0.75 ±0.08 | 79.6 ±5.5 | 0.41 ±0.25 | 1180.3 ±132.5 | 52.5 ±16.28 | 33.2 ±11.06 |
| Gr. 2 vs. Gr. 1 – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gr. 3 vs. Gr. 1 – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gr. 5 vs. Gr. 4 – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gr. 6 vs. Gr. 4 – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gr. 7 vs. Gr. 5 – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gr. 8 vs. Gr. 5 – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gr. 9 vs. Gr. 4 – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gr. 10 vs. Gr. 5 – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gr. 11 vs. Gr. 5 – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p > 0.05 – non significant
p < 0.05 – significant
p < 0.01, p < 0.001 – highly significantWR – Wistar rats, SDR – Sprague-Dawley rats, Bil – serum bilirubin, ALT – serum alanine aminotransferase, Ammon – serum ammonium, Creat – serum creatinine, CreatCl – creatinine clearance, Urine osmol – urine osmolality, OsmolCl – osmolar clearance, p – value of p. Biochemical parameters were evaluated 48 h after saline or Ga1N injection. Twenty four hours urine samples were collected during 24 h from 24th to 48th h after saline or Ga1N injection and evaluated 48 h after saline or Ga1N injection. Values are means ± SE, significance – p < 0.05. Group 1 – sham WR , group 2 – WR, given 1.1 g/kg Ga1N, group 3 – WR, given 2.2 g/kg Ga1N, group 4 – sham SDR, group 5 – SDR, given 1.1 g/kg Ga1N, group 6 – SDR, sham L-NAME group, given 100 mg/kg L-NAME, group 7 – SDR, given 100 mg/kg L-NAME 24 h and 48 h before Ga1N, group 8 – SDR, given 100 mg/kg L-NAME 24 and 48 h after Ga1N, group 9 – SDR, sham L-ARG group, given 150 mg/kg L-ARG, group 10 – SDR, given 150 mg/kg L-ARG 24 and 48 h before Ga1N, group 11 – SDR, given 150 mg/kg L-ARG 24 and 48 h after Ga1N
Figure 1Influence of L-NAME injection on creatinine clearance before and after liver injury. Inhibition of NO system before Ga1N intoxication significantly increased GFR. Inhibition of NOS after Ga1N intoxication also resulted in significant improvement of GFR, but to a lesser degree than in the case of treatment before intoxication. Values are means ± SE, significance – p < 0.05
Figure 2Influence of L-ARG injection on creatinine clearance before and after liver injury. Activation before liver damage did not significantly change level of GFR. However, using a donor for the NO system after Ga1N intoxication brought improvement of glomerular filtration, although not significantly. Values are means ± SE, significance – p < 0.05
Figure 3Histopathological picture of the liver in SDR. A – Lack of morphological changes in the liver from sham SDR rats (group 4) at 48 h after saline injection. Haematoxilin and eosin staining, light microscope, magnification 10×. B – Massive necrosis of hepatocytes in the liver from tested SDR rats (group 5) at 48 h after galactosamine injection. Haematoxilin and eosin staining, light microscope, magnification 10×
Figure 4Histopathological picture of the kidney in SDR. A – Lack of morphological changes in the kidney from sham SDR rats (group 4) at 48 h after saline injection. Hematoxilin and eosin staining, light microscope, magnification 10×. B – Lack of morphological changes in the kidney from tested SDR rats (group 5) at 48 h after galactosamine injection. Hematoxilin and eosin staining, light microscope, magnification 10×