Mechanisms of Glomerular Albumin Filtration and Tubular Reabsorption

Tojo, Akihiro; Kinugasa, Satoshi

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/481520

International Journal of Nephrology

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Proteinuria: From Molecular to Clinical Applications in Glomerulonephritis

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2012 | Article ID 481520 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/481520

Mechanisms of Glomerular Albumin Filtration and Tubular Reabsorption

Akihiro Tojo¹and Satoshi Kinugasa¹

Academic Editor: Omran Bakoush

Received13 Feb 2012

Revised21 Mar 2012

Accepted21 Mar 2012

Published20 May 2012

Abstract

Albumin is filtered through the glomerulus with a sieving coefficient of 0.00062, which results in approximately 3.3 g of albumin filtered daily in human kidneys. The proximal convoluted tubule reabsorbs 71%, the loop of Henle and distal tubule 23%, and collecting duct 3% of the glomerular filtered albumin, thus indicating that the kidney plays an important role in protein metabolism. Dysfunction of albumin reabsorption in the proximal tubules, due to reduced megalin expression, may explain the microalbuminuria in early-stage diabetes. Meanwhile, massive nonselective proteinuria is ascribed to various disorders of the glomerular filtration barrier, including podocyte detachment, glomerular basement membrane rupture, and slit diaphragm dysfunction in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, membranous nephropathy, and other glomerulonephritis. Selective albuminuria associated with foot process effacement and tight junction-like slit alteration is observed in the patients with minimal-change nephrotic syndrome, and the albumin uptake is enhanced in the podocyte cell body, possibly mediated by albumin receptors in the low-dose puromycin model. The role of enhanced podocyte albumin transport needs to be investigated to elucidate the mechanism of the selective albuminuria in minimal-change disease.

1. Introduction

The kidneys are responsible for maintaining the homeostasis of body fluids by the regulation of water balance, electrolyte balance, acid-base balance, and excretion of uremic toxins, and also production of various hormones such as renin, erythropoietin, and activation of vitamin D₃. However, little attention has so far been paid to the role of protein metabolism by the kidney. Primitive urine filtered by the glomerulus contains many proteins smaller than albumin, and the renal proximal tubules actively reabsorb these proteins, which are subsequently degraded to amino acids in lysosomes and returned to the blood [1]. This paper describes the mechanisms and pathways of glomerular albumin filtration and the amount of tubular reabsorption of albumin along the nephron in normal and pathological conditions based on our previous micropuncture studies. The concept that glomerular albumin filtration is restricted by the size and charge barriers of the glomerular basement membrane, and finally by the fine pores of the slit diaphragm, is widely accepted. However, Smithies [2] raised an essential issue; why do the slit diaphragms not “clog” with albumin if all filtered albumin molecules pass through them? Although glomerular albumin filtration could be performed by the diffusion of albumin back and forth across the GBM [3], how albumin molecules can diffuse out across the effaced podocyte foot processes entirely covering the basement membrane in minimal-change nephrotic syndrome remains unclear. This paper discusses the ultrastructural morphological changes of the glomerular filtration barrier in various glomerular diseases and proposes a new mechanism of glomerular albumin filtration in minimal-change nephrotic syndrome.

2. Albumin Filtration by the Glomerulus under Normal Conditions

Albumin contains three spherical domains, with a molecular weight of 69 kDa and a net charge of −15. It is a flexible, ellipsoid-shaped molecule, 3.8 nm in diameter and 15 nm long molecule [1, 4]. The slit pore size was originally reported to be a rectangular pore approximately 40 by 140 Å in cross section and 70 Å in length [5], and as a recent electron tomography study revealed, the glomerular slit-pores are 35 Å (3.5 nm) in diameter with some variation in size [6]. These measurements were performed on samples processed for electron microscopy, in which a slight reduction in size is inevitable, so the true size of these pores are likely to be larger than these values. Although the effective Stock-Einstein radius of albumin is 35 Å (70 Å in diameter), some albumin molecules are able to pass through the slit pores, due to their flexibility and ellipsoid shape. This is consistent with the observation of FITC-labeled albumin on the slit diaphragms between foot processes, indicating that a small fraction of albumin could pass through the slit pores in normal rats [7]. Early micropuncture studies demonstrated albumin concentration values form 3 to 728 μg/mL in primitive urine in Bowman’s capsule in normal rats [8–11]. The large variation has been interpreted as contamination with albumin in the serum from the peritubular capillaries during the collection of tubular fluid. Therefore, the fractional micropuncture method was developed to avoid serum albumin contamination. Renal tubules are initially punctured with an outer pipette, and then four fractions of tubular fluid are collected with an inner pipette. The albumin concentration is measured in the fourth fraction of tubular fluid, which is virtually free from contamination by serum albumin, yielding a value of 22.9 μg/mL in Bowman’s capsule, and an albumin-sieving coefficient of 0.00062 [12].

Isotope-labeled albumin clearance studies, which measured both urinary excretion and tubular uptake, divided by the plasma isotope level, showed consistent values with our fractional micropuncture data (Table 1). Albumin clearance studies after blocking proximal tubular reabsorption with L-lysine, treatment with low temperatures, or studies of congenital abnormalities of tubular reabsorption showed slightly smaller values in comparison to the micropuncture data.

The fractional excretion of albumin in Fanconi syndrome patients is 0.00008, and this may be approximately equivalent to the glomerular-sieving coefficient in the normal kidney [13]. However, nephron segments downstream of the proximal convoluted tubules can reabsorb about 26% of glomerular filtrated albumin even if proximal tubular albumin reabsorption is impaired in Fanconi syndrome, (Figure 1). Therefore, the glomerular albumin-sieving coefficient may actually be greater than 0.00011 in humans.

Larger amounts of glomerular albumin filtration have been reported. One study using tritium-labeled albumin demonstrated a sieving coefficient of 0.074 [14], and another study using Alexa-labeled albumin observed by confocal microscopy resulted in a sieving coefficient of 0.0341 [15], which is 50 to 100 times higher values than previous studies. However, there were several technical limitations including the sensitivity of the measurement methods, the interference by out-of-focus fluorescence, and the incomplete removal of unbound labeling molecules, which can freely pass the glomerular filtration barrier. These values also seem unrealistically high from the viewpoint of albumin metabolism.

The problem of out-of-focus fluorescence contaminating the signal from Bowman’s capsule was solved by performing two-photon microscopy studies utilizing internal photodetectors, and the glomerular-sieving coefficient was calculated as 0.002 with Alexa fluor labeled-rat serum albumin [16] and 0.001 with Rhodamine labeled 70-kD dextran [17], which are closer to the values estimated from micropunctures.

The glomerular-sieving coefficient is not a static constant parameter. The value changes in response to oscillational changes in GFR, temperature or laparotomy during experiments [17–20], and it may vary in the range from 0.0001 to 0.0006 under normal conditions.

3. The Important Role of the Kidney in the Protein Metabolism

Albumin concentration along the rat nephron was measured in fractional micropuncture studies (Figure 1) [12]. Renal tubules reabsorb about 3 g of albumin per day in humans (Table 2). The albumin reabsorption capacity measured in the isolated rabbit proximal tubule was 99.9 × 10⁻³ ng/min/mm [21]. The length of the proximal tubule is 6.5 mm [22], so human kidneys can be estimated to reabsorb 1.9 g (99.9 × 10⁻³ ng/min/mm × 24 h × 60 min × 6.5 mm × 2 × 10⁶ nephron) of albumin per day. The nephron segments downstream of the proximal convoluted tubules further reabsorbs about 26% of filtered albumin, thus the total amount of albumin reabsorption in the kidney comes to 2.6 g a day, which is consistent with the micropuncture data. Albumin molecules are taken up into lysosomes in the proximal tubule within 6 to15 minutes and then degraded to amino acids after 30 to 120 minutes in the proximal tubule [1, 21]. Therefore, the kidney should be regarded as an organ that plays an important role in the protein metabolism.

The high sieving coefficient values reported by Russo et al. [15], which suggest that about 200 g of albumin per day are filtered in the glomerulus and reabsorbed in the proximal tubule, seem highly unlikely. In fact, abundant amounts of albumin cannot be detected in the normal kidney by immunostaining. In addition, the proximal tubule is unlikely to be able to transport such huge amounts of intact albumin under physiological conditions [21, 23, 24]. It is unreasonable that albumin filtration and metabolism in the kidney is larger than the daily production by the liver (~20 g), or than the total plasma albumin (~125 g).

On the other hand, low molecular weight proteins are almost all freely filtered at the glomerulus with a sieving coefficient of 0.987 [12] and about 9.6 g are reabsorbed per day (Table 2). The tubular dysfunction of protein metabolism in chronic renal failure cannot be compensated for by hemodialysis, so low molecular weight protein deposits, such as β2-microglobulin, in various organs, cause amyloidosis in hemodialysis patients. The physiological role of protein metabolism in the kidney must be accounted for.

4. Mechanism of Microalbuminuria in Diabetic Nephropathy

Microalbuminuria is an early marker of diabetic nephropathy and is believed to occur due to increased glomerular permeability and glomerular hyperfiltration [25, 26]. However, a fractional micropuncture study demonstrated the proximal tubular albumin reabsorption to decrease without an increase in the glomerular albumin filtration in the early stages of streptozotocin-induced diabetic nephropathy (Figure 2) [27]. This tubular dysfunction may be one of the mechanisms of microalbuminuria in the early-stage diabetes. This is supported by the finding that megalin, the receptor for albumin endocytosis in the proximal tubules, is decreased in diabetic rats [27], and by the measurement of albumin clearance after the blockade of proximal reabsorption with lysine, utilizing isotope labeled-bovine serum albumin [28]. There is a possibility that the true amount of albuminuria may be larger than that detected in the urine by measuring the intact albumin, because albumin degrades to fragmented albumin by brush border enzymes in the proximal tubules, [29].

(a)

(b)

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors are reported to restore megalin expression, ameliorate the tubular dysfunction of albumin reabsorption, and reduce albuminuria in diabetic rats [30]. Albumin is reabsorbed by receptor-mediated endocytosis into endosomes, where ligand-receptor dissociation must occur to recycle the albumin-binding receptors back to the plasma membrane. Vesicular acidification by H⁺-ATPase, CLC-5, NHE-3 is functionally important for the pH-dependent dissociation between albumin and megalin, and effective albumin reabsorption [1, 31]. Renal tissue angiotensin II levels are elevated in diabetes [32]. Angiotensin II blocks H⁺-ATPase [33], thus acidification of endosomes may be reduced by inhibition of H⁺-ATPase by renal angiotensin II, thus leading to decreased albumin reabsorption. Therefore, RAS inhibitors not only prevent intraglomerular hypertension and disrupt of glomerular permselectivity [34], but also restore albumin metabolism in the proximal tubules.

5. Questions Pertaining to Glomerular Albumin Filtration through Slit Pores in the Nephrotic Syndrome

The glomerular filtration barrier is made up of three layers; (1) the fenestrated endothelium covered by a negatively charged glycocalyx, (2) the glomerular basement membrane, where a size barrier is containing laminin and type IV collagen and a charge barrier generated by heparan sulfate is presumed to function as a coarse barrier, (3) and finally the slit diaphragm between foot processes, which is regarded as a fine filter [35]. Yamada identified the slit diaphragm by electron microscopy in 1955 [36] and Rodewald and Karnovsky identified the zipper-like structure of the slit membrane [5], indicating that albumin is filtered through the slit pores, similar to water, ions, and low molecular proteins. Experiments using various tracers raised the controversy over whether the GBM or the slit diaphragm is the most crucial restrictive filtration barrier; ferritin accumulates in the GBM, but not under the slit diaphragm [37], whereas horseradish peroxidase (HRP) is observed on the slit diaphragm as well as on the GBM [38, 39]. The identification of nephrin at the slit diaphragm and its mutation in the Finnish-type congenital nephrotic syndrome provided crucial evidence that the slit membrane is the main component of the glomerular filtration barrier [40, 41]. However, the importance of the GBM cannot be ignored, for laminin β2 (LAMB2) knockout mice show a severe disorganization of the GBM structure, and accompanying proteinuria [42]. In addition, the importance of the charge barrier of GBM needs to be further investigated. Heparan sulfate synthase deficient mice do not show proteinuria even though they show reduction of the negative charge of the GBM and foot process effacement [43].

Therefore, both the slit diaphragm and the GBM are important for a functioning glomerular filtration barrier. However, several critical questions need to be answered before accepting the concept of albumin filtration through slit pores, (1) albumin does not accumulate under the slit diaphragm in tracer studies, (2) the sieving coefficient of albumin is much lower than Dextran or Ficoll of similar size, which cannot be fully explained from differences in flexibility of the molecular shape and charge between these molecules [4, 44], (3) the glomerular sieving coefficient to albumin should increase at high glomerular filtration rates, if the slit pores are the main barrier for albumin restriction; however, the opposite phenomenon has also been reported [18], (4) the number of slit diaphragms decreases with a tight junction like structural change in minimal-change nephrotic syndrome, and (5) reduction of nephrin may cause enlargement of the slit pores, that can explain massive proteinuria but not selective albuminuria in minimal-change nephrotic syndrome. It is noteworthy that both HRP and ferritin tracers are identified in the podocyte cytoplasm in some tracer studies [37, 39]，thus suggesting that some transport mechanism may also exist for albumin.

6. Electron Microscopic Observation of Various Mechanisms of Proteinuria in Glomerular Diseases

Careful observation of human renal biopsies in electron microscopy images makes it possible to identify lesions responsible for proteinuria in various glomerular diseases (Figure 3). Glomerulonephritis including IgA nephropathy, ANCA-related nephritis, acute glomerulonephritis, and lupus nephritis show damage of the GBM by inflammatory cells forming ruptures or holes causing nonselective proteinuria with accompanying hematuria (Figure 3(a)). Podocyte detachment and podocyte apoptosis are observed in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and membranous nephropathy, and proteins leak from the site of denuded GBM, causing nonselective proteinuria (Figures 3(b) and 3(c)). The denuded GBM is prone to adhere to the Bowman’s capsule, resulting in segmental sclerosis. Podocyte detachment or apoptosis could occur by various mechanisms including hemodynamic stretching, immunological mechanisms such as immune complex deposition, integrin-dependent signaling, and oxidative stress derived from NADPH oxidase following stimulation by angiotensin II and cytokines [45–49]. These ultrastructural morphological changes of the GBM may represent the shunt pathway assumed in mathematical models of glomerular permselectivity [3, 50]. While these findings are often observed in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and the “high dose” puromycin aminonucleoside nephrotic syndrome model [50], such shunts are rarely observed in both human minimal-change nephrotic syndrome and the low-dose puromycin model.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 3

Electron microscopy of human renal biopsy samples. (a) Glomerular basement membrane rupture (arrowhead) in IgA nephropathy. (b) Podocyte loss and a denuded glomerular basement membrane in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Proteins were observed as nonuniform electron dense substances in the capillary lumen and also in the urinary space adjacent to the denuded glomerular basement membrane (arrow heads), suggesting large amounts of protein including albumin filtered through the denuded glomerular basement membrane, leading to proteinuria. (c) Podocyte detachment and apoptosis in membranous nephropathy with subepithelial electron dense deposits. (d) Diffuse foot process effacement with reduction of the slit membranes in minimal-change nephrotic syndrome. Bars indicate 500 nm.

7. Possible Mechanisms of Selective Albuminuria in Minimal-Change Nephrotic Syndrome

Possible mechanisms of proteinuria in minimal-change nephrotic syndrome are schematically shown in Figure 4. The common assumption is that proteins leak from the slit pores due to reduced nephrin expression, while podocyte detachment is rarely observed [51, 52]. Podocytes with effaced foot processes widely cover the glomerular capillary wall in minimal change nephrotic syndrome (Figure 3(d)), and podocyte slit pore density is decreased by 80% at most, and half of the slits display a tight-junction-like structure [51]. These structural changes in the podocytes raise the question of which route albumin actually passes through. Even if massive amounts of albumin are filtered through the altered slit membrane, it is difficult to explain the selective proteinuria by decrease in nephrin, which should lead to enlarged slit pores. In addition, there is discrepancy in time between the peaks of proteinuria and the expression of nephrin in the nephrotic model induced by an antibody against nephrin [53, 54] and in the puromycin aminonucleoside model [55]. It is possible that reduced nephrin expression is not a cause of nephrotic syndromes, but merely a reflection of the decrease in slit pore number. The results of labeled albumin tracer studies suggest that albumin may be transported through the podocyte cell body by endocytosis and exocytosis [7]. This hypothesis was confirmed using Evans blue (EB, molecular weight 961 Da) labeled albumin, which strongly binds to albumin without altering albumin’s molecular weight, and shows red fluorescence, in the puromycin nephrotic model in GFP transgenic rats [56]. Podocytes emitting green GFP fluorescence turn yellow after the uptake of EB-labeled albumin. There is an initial delay of approximately 5 minutes before appearance of EB-albumin in the tubular lumen, which may be due to the time needed for the transcellular transport of albumin [56]. There are several receptors for albumin including megalin and cubilin in the proximal tubule [57], gp60 in the endothelium [58], and FcRn in podocytes [59, 60]. Interestingly, blocking the FcRn receptor with an antibody for FcRn reduces proteinuria, thus suggesting that the transport of albumin in the podocyte is at least partially mediated by FcRn [56]. The capacity for albumin endocytosis is large enough to explain daily albumin filtration through the podocytes ( 97.4 μg/mg cell protein/h) [61]. This value indicates that the estimated total endocytic capacity in human kidneys is 3.6 g/day [97.4 μg/mg cell protein/h × 0.21 mg cell protein/mg cell × cell volume (4/3)π × (10 μm)³ × 878 podocytes per glomerulus × 2 × 10⁶ glomeruli per kidney × 24 h].

Figure 4

Possible mechanisms of albuminuria in minimal-change nephrotic syndrome. Albumin is filtered through the endothelial fenestrae, the basement membrane, and finally through the impaired slit diaphragm. Albumin is also filtered through the glomerular capillary wall where podocytes are lost by podocyte detachment or apoptosis causing enlarged slit pores and nonselective proteinuria. A mechanism of receptor-mediated albumin transport via FcRn through podocytes may explain the selective albuminuria in minimal-change disease.

These findings shed new light on the possibility of filtration pathways of albumin through the podocyte cell body via receptor-mediated transcytosis. This mechanism of albumin filtration may answer the essential question raised by Smithies [2] of why the slit diaphragms do not “clog” with albumin in nephrotic syndrome. Further studies are necessary to elucidate how albumin is transported and excreted through the podocyte cell body.

8. Conclusion

In conclusion, the glomerular-sieving coefficient of albumin is 0.00062, and the kidney plays an important role in protein metabolism. Tubular dysfunction of albumin endocytosis via megalin can explain the microalbuminuria in the early-stage diabetic nephropathy. The identification of nephrin indicated that the slit diaphragm with slit pores may be a restriction filter for albumin molecules. Podocyte detachment and apoptosis or GBM rupture may explain the nonselective proteinuria with or without hematuria. Meanwhile, selective albuminuria in minimal-change nephrotic syndrome may be explained by the receptor-mediated transcytosis of albumin by podocytes, and this could be a new target for the treatment of the nephrotic syndrome.

Acknowledgments

This paper is partly supported by grants-in-aid for scientific research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to AT (C-19590938, C-23591214). The author would like to dedicate this paper to his excellent mentor Professor Hitoshi Endou who created the idea of the fractional micropuncture technique and the tubular mechanism of microalbuminuria.

References

M. Gekle, “Renal tubule albumin transport,” Annual Review of Physiology, vol. 67, pp. 573–594, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Smithies, “Why the kidney glomerulus does not clog: a gel permeation/diffusion hypothesis of renal function,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 7, pp. 4108–4113, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Haraldsson, J. Nyström, and W. M. Deen, “Properties of the glomerular barrier and mechanisms of proteinuria,” Physiological Reviews, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 451–487, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. D. Comper and E. F. Glasgow, “Charge selectivity in kidney ultrafiltration,” Kidney International, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1242–1251, 1995.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Rodewald and M. J. Karnovsky, “Porous substructure of the glomerular slit diaphragm in the rat and mouse,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 423–433, 1974.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Wartiovaara, L. G. Öfverstedt, J. Khoshnoodi et al., “Nephrin strands contribute to a porous slit diaphragm scaffold as revealed by electron tomography,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 114, no. 10, pp. 1475–1483, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Tojo, M. L. Onozato, C. Kitiyakara et al., “Glomerular albumin filtration through podocyte cell body in puromycin aminonucleoside nephrotic rat,” Medical Molecular Morphology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 92–98, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Dirks, J. R. Clapp, and R. W. Berliner, “The protein concentration in the proximal tubule of the dog,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 43, pp. 916–921, 1964.
View at: Google Scholar
P. D. Leber and D. J. Marsh, “Micropuncture study of concentration and fate of albumin in rat nephron,” The American journal of physiology, vol. 219, no. 2, pp. 358–363, 1970.
View at: Google Scholar
D. E. Oken and W. Flamenbaum, “Micropuncture studies of proximal tubule albumin concentrations in normal and nephrotic rats,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 1498–1505, 1971.
View at: Google Scholar
D. M. Landwehr, J. S. Carvalho, and D. E. Oken, “Micropuncture studies of the filtration and absorption of albumin by nephrotic rats,” Kidney International, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 9–17, 1977.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Tojo and H. Endou, “Intrarenal handling of proteins in rats using fractional micropuncture technique,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 263, no. 4, pp. F601–F606, 1992.
View at: Google Scholar
A. G. W. Norden, M. Lapsley, P. J. Lee et al., “Glomerular protein sieving and implications for renal failure in Fanconi syndrome,” Kidney International, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1885–1892, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. A. Eppel, T. M. Osicka, L. M. Pratt et al., “The return of glomerular-filtered albumin to the rat renal vein,” Kidney International, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1861–1870, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. M. Russo, R. M. Sandoval, M. McKee et al., “The normal kidney filters nephrotic levels of albumin retrieved by proximal tubule cells: retrieval is disrupted in nephrotic states,” Kidney International, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 504–513, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. A. Tanner, “Glomerular sieving coefficient of serum albumin in the rat: a two-photon microscopy study,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 296, no. 6, pp. F1258–F1265, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Peti-Peterdi and A. Sipos, “A high-powered view of the filtration barrier,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1835–1841, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Lund, A. Rippe, D. Venturoli, O. Tenstad, A. Grubb, and B. Rippe, “Glomerular filtration rate dependence of sieving of albumin and some neutral proteins in rat kidneys,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 284, no. 6, pp. F1226–F1234, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Axelsson, I. Mahmutovic, A. Rippe, and B. Rippe, “Loss of size selectivity of the glomerular filtration barrier in rats following laparotomy and muscle trauma,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 297, no. 3, pp. F577–F582, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Axelsson, A. Rippe, D. Venturoli, P. Swärd, and B. Rippe, “Effects of early endotoxemia and dextran-induced anaphylaxis on the size selectivity of the glomerular filtration barrier in rats,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 296, no. 2, pp. F242–F248, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. H. Park, “Time course and vectorial nature of albumin metabolism in isolated perfused rabbit PCT,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 255, no. 3, pp. F520–F528, 1988.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Solomon, “Developmental changes in nephron number, proximal tubular length and superficial nephron glomerular filtration rate of rats,” Journal of Physiology, vol. 272, no. 3, pp. 573–589, 1977.
View at: Google Scholar
E. I. Christensen, H. Birn, B. Rippe, and A. B. Maunsbach, “Controversies in nephrology: renal albumin handling, facts, and artifacts!,” Kidney International, vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 1192–1194, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. M. Deen and M. J. Lazzara, “Glomerular filtration of albumin: how small is the sieving coefficient?” Kidney International, vol. 66, no. 92, pp. S63–S64, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Mogensen and C. K. Christensen, “Predicting diabetic nephropathy in insulin-dependent patients,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 311, no. 2, pp. 89–93, 1984.
View at: Google Scholar
R. G. Tilton, K. Chang, G. Pugliese et al., “Prevention of hemodynamic and vascular albumin filtration changes in diabetic rats by aldose reductase inhibitors,” Diabetes, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 1258–1270, 1989.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Tojo, M. L. Onozato, H. Ha et al., “Reduced albumin reabsorption in the proximal tubule of early-stage diabetic rats,” Histochemistry and Cell Biology, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 269–276, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
B. J. Tucker, R. Rasch, and R. C. Blantz, “Glomerular filtration and tubular reabsorption of albumin in preproteinuric and proteinuric diabetic rats,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 686–694, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
T. M. Osicka, C. A. Houlihan, J. G. Chan, G. Jerums, and W. D. Comper, “Albuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes is directly linked to changes in the lysosome-mediated degradation of albumin during renal passage,” Diabetes, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1579–1584, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Tojo, M. L. Onozato, H. Kurihara, T. Sakai, A. Goto, and T. Fujita, “Angiotensin II blockade restores albumin reabsorption in the proximal tubules of diabetic rats,” Hypertension Research, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 413–419, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Gekle, S. Mildenberger, R. Freudinger, and S. Silbernagl, “Endosomal alkalinization reduces J(max) and K(m) of albumin receptor- mediated endocytosis in OK cells,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 268, no. 5, pp. F899–F906, 1995.
View at: Google Scholar
M. L. Onozato, A. Tojo, J. Leiper, T. Fujita, F. Palm, and C. S. Wilcox, “Expression of N^G,N^G-dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase and protein arginine N-methyltransferase isoforms in diabetic rat kidney effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers,” Diabetes, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 172–180, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Tojo, C. C. Tisher, and K. M. Madsen, “Angiotensin II rregulates H⁺-ATPase activity in rat cortical collecting duct,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 267, no. 6, pp. F1045–F1051, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Andersen, K. Blouch, J. Bialek, M. Deckert, H. H. Parving, and B. D. Myers, “Glomerular permselectivity in early stages of overt diabetic nephropathy,” Kidney International, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 2129–2137, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. M. Deen, M. J. Lazzara, and B. D. Myers, “Structural determinants of glomerular permeability,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 281, no. 4, pp. F579–F596, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Yamada, “The fine structure of the renal glomerulus of the mouse,” The Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 551–566, 1955.
View at: Google Scholar
M. G. Farquhar, S. L. WISSIG, and G. E. Palade, “Glomerular permeability. II. Ferritin transfer across the glomerular capillary wall in nephrotic rats,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 114, pp. 699–716, 1961.
View at: Google Scholar
R. C. Graham Jr. and M. J. Karnovsky, “Glomerular permeability. Ultrastructural cytochemical studies using peroxidases as protein tracers,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 124, no. 6, pp. 1123–1134, 1966.
View at: Google Scholar
M. A. Venkatachalam, M. J. Karnovsky, and R. S. Cotran, “Glomerular permeability. Ultrastructural studies in experimental nephrosis using horseradish peroxidase as a tracer,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 381–399, 1969.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Ruotsalainen, P. Ljungberg, J. Wartiovaara et al., “Nephrin is specifically located at the slit diaphragm of glomerular podocytes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 96, no. 14, pp. 7962–7967, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Tryggvason, “Unraveling the mechanisms of glomerular ultrafiltration: nephrin, a key component of the slit diaphragm,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 2440–2445, 1999.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Jarad, J. Cunningham, A. S. Shaw, and J. H. Miner, “Proteinuria precedes podocyte abnormalities in Lamb2^-/- mice, implicating the glomerular basement membrane as an albumin barrier,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 116, no. 8, pp. 2272–2279, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. van den Hoven, T. J. Wijnhoven, J. P. Li et al., “Reduction of anionic sites in the glomerular basement membrane by heparanase does not lead to proteinuria,” Kidney International, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 278–287, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Venturoli and B. Rippe, “Ficoll and dextran vs. globular proteins as probes for testing glomerular permselectivity: Effects of molecular size, shape, charge, and deformability,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 288, no. 4, pp. F605–F613, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Tojo, K. Asaba, and M. L. Onozato, “Suppressing renal NADPH oxidase to treat diabetic nephropathy,” Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 1011–1018, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Shankland, “The podocyte's response to injury: role in proteinuria and glomerulosclerosis,” Kidney International, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 2131–2147, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Asaba, A. Tojo, M. L. Onozato et al., “Effects of NADPH oxidase inhibitor in diabetic nephropathy,” Kidney International, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 1890–1898, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. L. Onozato, A. Tojo, A. Goto, T. Fujita, and C. S. Wilcox, “Oxidative stress and nitric oxide synthase in rat diabetic nephropathy: effects of ACEI and ARB,” Kidney International, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 186–194, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Dai, D. B. Stolz, S. I. Bastacky et al., “Essential role of integrin-linked kinase in podocyte biology: bridging the integrin and slit diaphragm signaling,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 2164–2175, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Hjalmarsson, M. Ohlson, and B. Haraldsson, “Puromycin aminonucleoside damages the glomerular size barrier with minimal effects on charge density,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 281, no. 3, pp. F503–F512, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
A. T. Lahdenkari, K. Lounatmaa, J. Patrakka et al., “Podocytes are firmly attached to glomerular basement membrane in kidneys with heavy proteinuria,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 2611–2618, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. N. Furness, L. L. Hall, J. A. Shaw, and J. H. Pringle, “Glomerular expression of nephrin is decreased in acquired human nephrotic syndrome,” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1234–1237, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Kawachi, H. Koike, H. Kurihara et al., “Cloning of rat nephrin: expression in developing glomeruli and in proteinuric states,” Kidney International, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1949–1961, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Orikasa, K. Matsui, T. Oite, and F. Shimizu, “Massive proteinuria induced in rats by a single intravenous injection of a monoclonal antibody,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 141, no. 3, pp. 807–814, 1988.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Duner, K. Lindstrom, K. Hultenby et al., “Permeability, ultrastructural changes, and distribution of novel proteins in the glomerular barrier in early puromycin aminonucleoside nephrosis,” Nephron Experimental Nephrology, vol. 116, pp. e42–e52, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Kinugasa, A. Tojo, T. Sakai et al., “Selective albuminuria via podocyte albumin transport in puromycin nephrotic rats is attenuated by an inhibitor of NADPH oxidase,” Kidney International, vol. 80, pp. 1328–1338, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
E. I. Christensen and H. Birn, “Megalin and cubilin: multifunctional endocytic receptors,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 256–266, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Mehta and A. B. Malik, “Signaling mechanisms regulating endothelial permeability,” Physiological Reviews, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 279–367, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Akilesh, T. B. Huber, H. Wu et al., “Podocytes use FcRn to clear IgG from the glomerular basement membrane,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 967–972, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Sarav, Y. Wang, B. K. Hack et al., “Renal FcRn reclaims albumin but facilitates elimination of IgG,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1941–1952, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Eyre, K. Ioannou, B. D. Grubb et al., “Statin-sensitive endocytosis of albumin by glomerular podocytes,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 292, no. 2, pp. F674–F681, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Bertolatus and L. G. Hunsicker, “Glomerular sieving of anionic and neutral bovine albumins in proteinuric rats,” Kidney International, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 467–476, 1985.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Tencer, I. M. Frick, B. W. Öquist, P. Alm, and B. Rippe, “Size-selectivity of the glomerular barrier to high molecular weight proteins: upper size limitations of shunt pathways,” Kidney International, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 709–715, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Ohlson, J. Sorensson, and B. Haraldsson, “Glomerular size and charge selectivity in the rat as revealed by FITC-Ficoll and albumin,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 279, no. 1, pp. F84–F91, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2012 Akihiro Tojo and Satoshi Kinugasa. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

57993

Downloads

6807

Citations