Protection against renal ischemia-reperfusion injury through hormesis? Dietary intervention versus cold exposure
Life Sciences , Volume 144 p. 69- 79
Aim Dietary restriction (DR) and fasting (FA) induce robust protection against the detrimental effects of renal ischemia-reperfusion injury (I/RI). Several mechanisms of protection have been proposed, such as hormesis. Hormesis is defined as a life-supporting beneficial effect resulting from the cellular responses to single or multiple rounds of (mild) stress. The cold exposure (CE) model is a stress model similar to DR, and has been shown to have hormetic effects and has proved to increase longevity. CE is considered to be the most robust method to increase metabolism through activation of brown adipocytes. BAT has been considered important in etiology of obesity and its metabolic consequences. Materials and methods Since DR, FA, and CE models are proposed to work through hormesis, we investigated physiology of adipose tissue and effect on BAT in these models and compared them to ad libitum (AL) fed mice. We also studied the differential effect of these stress models on immunological changes, and effect of CE on renal I/RI. Key findings We show similar physiological changes in adiposity in male C57Bl/6 mice due to DR, FA and CE, but the CE mice were not protected against renal I/RI. The immunophenotypic changes observed in the CE mice were similar to the AL animals, in contrast to FA mice, that showed major immunophenotypic changes in the B and T cell development stages in primary and secondary lymphoid organs. Significance Our findings thus demonstrate that DR, FA and CE are hormetic stress models. DR and FA protect against renal I/IR, whereas CE could not.
|, , , ,|
|Organisation||Department of Internal Medicine|
Shushimita, S, Grefhorst, A, Steenbergen, J, de Bruin, R.W.F, IJzermans, J.N.M, Themmen, A.P.N, & Dor, F.J.M.F. (2016). Protection against renal ischemia-reperfusion injury through hormesis? Dietary intervention versus cold exposure. Life Sciences, 144, 69–79. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2015.11.022