AJP - Renal Information on EB 2010
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 292: F1094-F1101, 2007. First published December 5, 2006; doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00351.2005
0363-6127/07 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
292/3/F1094    most recent
00351.2005v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Rodijnen, W. F.
Right arrow Articles by Tangelder, G.-J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Rodijnen, W. F.
Right arrow Articles by Tangelder, G.-J.

Direct vasoconstrictor effect of prostaglandin E2 on renal interlobular arteries: role of the EP3 receptor

William F. van Rodijnen,1 Iolente J. Korstjens,1 Natalee Legerstee,1 Piet M. ter Wee,2 and Geert-Jan Tangelder1

1Laboratory for Physiology and 2Department of Nephrology, Institute for Cardiovascular Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Submitted 26 August 2005 ; accepted in final form 27 November 2006


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Evidence indicates that prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) preferentially affects preglomerular renal vessels. However, whether this is limited to small-caliber arterioles or whether larger vessels farther upstream also respond to PGE2 is currently unclear. In the present study, we first investigated the effects of PGE2 along the preglomerular vascular tree and subsequently focused on proximal interlobular arteries (ILAs). Proximal ILAs in hydronephrotic rat kidneys as well as isolated vessels from normal kidneys constricted in response to PGE2, both under basal conditions and after the induction of vascular tone. By contrast, smaller vessels, i.e., distal ILAs and afferent arterioles, exhibited PGE2-induced vasodilation. Endothelium removal and pretreatment of single, isolated proximal ILAs with an EP1 receptor blocker (SC51322, 1 µmol/l) or a thromboxane A2 receptor blocker (SQ29548, 1 µmol/l) did not prevent vasoconstriction to PGE2. Furthermore, in the presence of SC51322, responses of these vessels to PGE2 and the EP1/EP3 agonist sulprostone were superimposable, indicating that PGE2-induced vasoconstriction is mediated by EP3 receptors on smooth muscle cells. Immunohistochemical staining of proximal ILAs confirmed the presence of EP3 receptor protein on these cells and the endothelium. Adding PGE2 to normal isolated kidneys induced a biphasic flow response, i.e., an initial flow increase at PGE2 concentrations ≤0.1 µmol/l followed by a flow decrease at 1 µmol/l PGE2. Thus our results demonstrate that PGE2 affects multiple segments of the preglomerular vascular tree in a different way. At the level of the proximal ILAs, PGE2 had a direct vasoconstrictor action mediated by EP3 receptors.

interlobular arteries; vasoconstriction

PGE2 IS ONE OF the major cyclooxygenase-derived products produced by the kidney (17). The actions of PGE2 intrarenally include both tubular and vascular effects (2). The latter are important for regulating renal function under various circumstances. So far, the effects of PGE2 on smaller pre- and postglomerular arterioles have mainly received attention. The postglomerular efferent arterioles were found to be insensitive to PGE2 (4, 23), while for the preglomerular afferent arterioles (AAs) and distal interlobular arteries (ILAs) most studies indicated vasodilation (4, 8, 23), although vasoconstriction in certain instances has been reported as well (9, 23). Whether larger vessels further upstream of the glomerulus are also sensitive to PGE2 is currently unknown. Previous studies have demonstrated that larger preglomerular vessels constrict in response to inflammatory mediators, such as serotonin and leukotrienes (5, 19), suggesting a similar mode of action for PGE2.

In general, the actions of PGE2 are mediated by a family of four G protein-coupled receptors, designated EP1–EP4 (3, 16). Of these receptors, EP2 and EP4 have been shown to stimulate intracellular processes leading to smooth muscle cell relaxation and, hence, vasodilation. EP1 and EP3 receptors, on the other hand, stimulate processes leading to vasoconstriction. For example, in cell cultures, EP1 receptor activation has been shown to increase intracellular Ca2+ concentration (26). In addition, EP3 receptors have been found to inhibit intracellular cAMP production (21, 22) and are thereby able to reduce PKA activity.

The purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of PGE2 on intermediate and proximal ILAs. Initially, experiments were performed using the isolated, perfused hydronephrotic rat kidney model. In this preparation, nearly the entire microvasculature can be visualized, allowing a direct comparison of responses of different vessel segments. Using this model, we found that, in contrast to distal ILAs and AAs, larger preglomerular arterioles manifested a direct vasoconstrictor response to PGE2. Thereupon, we used normal kidneys to determine in isolated proximal ILAs the receptor subtype involved, both pharmacologically and immunohistochemically. In addition, we assessed the effects of PGE2 on renal hemodynamics.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
All experiments were performed using 12- to 15-wk-old male Sprague-Dawley rats (Harlan, Horst, The Netherlands). The animals were housed in macrolon cages with free access to tap water and a standard rat chow (Hope Farm, Woerden, The Netherlands). All their handling was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Drugs. PGE2 was obtained from Calbiochem. The EP1 receptor blocker SC51322, the thromboxane A2 (TXA2) receptor antagonist SQ29548, and the EP1/EP3 agonist sulprostone were obtained from Biomol and Cayman Chemical, respectively. ANG II, norepinephrine, and acetylcholine were purchased from Sigma.

Isolated, perfused hydronephrotic and normal kidneys. To obtain hydronephrotic kidneys, rats were anesthetized with isoflurane (3% in O2, 0.7 l/min and N2O, 1.2 l/min, Abbott Laboratory, Queensborough, Kent, UK) at a younger age, i.e., ~8 wk before the in vitro experiments. Subsequently, the left ureter was located and tied off with a suture. Ureter ligation is known to induce almost complete tubular atrophy (20), allowing direct microscopic visualization of nearly the entire renal microvascular bed.

For in vitro perfusion, both hydronephrotic and normal kidneys were isolated in a similar manner (see Ref. 25 for an extensive description). Briefly, the rat was anesthetized with a combination of pentobarbital sodium (50 mg/kg ip, Sanofi Sante, Maassluis, The Netherlands) and ketamine (25 mg/kg im, Kombivet, Etten-Leur, The Netherlands). The kidney was exposed by opening the abdominal cavity, and the renal artery was cannulated via the abdominal aorta. Perfusion was started in situ with preheated DMEM (Sigma) supplemented with (in mmol/l) 23.8 NaHCO3, 5.6 HEPES, 5.5 D-glucose, and 1 sodium pyruvate (all Sigma). DMEM was equilibrated with 95% air-5% CO2 at 37°C, resulting in a pH of 7.4. Then, the kidney was excised and moved to a heated chamber on the stage of an inverted microscope (Axiovert 100, Zeiss) without disruption of renal flow. For all studies, a single-pass perfusion was employed. The perfusion apparatus consisted of a small pressurized reservoir (~25 ml) connected to the renal arterial cannula, that was filled on demand from a larger preheated and oxygenated reservoir (~600 ml). Agents were added in a cumulative manner to this larger reservoir. Both hydronephrotic and normal kidneys were perfused at a constant pressure of 80 mmHg, monitored at the level of the renal artery. Pressure changes were eliminated by adjusting the outflow of gas (95% air-5% CO2) from the small reservoir. In normal kidneys, renal perfusate flow was measured using an electromagnetic flow probe (TS410, Transonic Systems) mounted in the perfusion line proximal to the kidney.

To visualize different vessel segments in hydronephrotic kidneys, a small hole was made in the cortex through which a fiber optic probe was inserted, transilluminating a portion of the membranous cortex. Vessel images were generated using a x40 objective lens (numerical aperture 0.6, Zeiss) and a CCD camera (7020/20, Philips, Eindhoven, The Netherlands). The images were recorded on a VCR for offline analysis using a custom designed vessel wall tracking system (12). Changes in afferent arteriolar diameters were analyzed just after branching from ILAs. ILAs were divided into four different groups based on their location and basal diameters: distal (connected to AAs), intermediate (30–50 and 50–70 µm), and proximal (>70 µm). ILA diameters were measured near their midpoint.

Isolated cannulated proximal interlobular arteries. Proximal ILAs were isolated from normal dissected kidneys and kept in ice-cold dissection DMEM in which NaHCO3 was lowered to 4.2 mmol/l by replacing NaHCO3 with NaCl. This medium was equilibrated with atmospheric CO2, and pH was set at 7.4 using NaOH. The isolated ILAs were mounted with sutures between two glass micropipettes in a water-jacketed chamber of a pressure myograph. The chamber was moved to the stage of a microscope, filled with dissection DMEM, and sealed with a glass cover. One of the micropipettes was connected to a pressure column, used to gradually pressurize the ILA to 75 mmHg. The other pipette was clamped off and connected to a micrometer to stretch the vessel to its in vivo length. The time period from dissection to mounting the vessel did not exceed 2 h. Superfusion with normal DMEM was subsequently started, and the temperature was raised to 37°C. Superfusion rate was set at ~2 ml/min, with refreshing of the myograph chamber volume every minute. Agents were added directly to the superfusion medium in a cumulative manner. Changes in vessel diameter were measured online using a custom designed measurement system. Only those vessels exhibiting a clear endothelium-dependent vasodilator response to 0.3 µmol/l acetylcholine (>50% reversal of PGE2-induced vasoconstriction) were used for determining mean responses. In one series of experiments, the endothelium was removed deliberately by perfusing the vessels with a bubble of air. When ILAs were subjected to this treatment, acetylcholine-induced vasodilatation was completely absent. To exclude the possibility that PGE2-induced vasoconstriction of ILAs was mediated by TXA2 receptors, isolated ILAs were treated in another series of experiments with the specific TXA2 receptor blocker SQ29548 (1 µmol/l, 10 min) after which PGE2 concentration-response curves were constructed.

Equilibration and elimination of endogenous prostanoids. All in vitro preparations described above were allowed to equilibrate for at least 30 min before experiments began. All were pretreated with 10 µmol/l ibuprofen (Sigma) to eliminate the influence of endogenous prostanoids. Sufficient cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibition by this ibuprofen concentration is indicated by our observation that treatment with a selective COX-2 inhibitor (NS-398, 10 µmol/l, Sigma) in hydronephrotic kidneys did not change basal diameters of pre- or postglomerular vessels. Changes in vessel diameter or perfusion flow caused by a drug were evaluated during the plateau of the response, usually ~10 min after its addition.

Immunohistochemical staining of EP3 and EP1 receptors. Cannulated proximal ILAs were fixated with 2% ice-cold paraformaldehyde in dissection DMEM, embedded in 15% gelatin, and frozen in liquid nitrogen. Cut 10-µm sections were permeabilized with 0.3% Triton X-100, blocked with 10% goat serum in PBS [1 h, at room temperature (RT)], and incubated with a rabbit polyclonal antibody against EP3 or EP1 receptors (1:500 in PBS containing 3% goat serum, 48 h, 4°C, both Cayman Chemical). In the negative background control, the primary antibody was omitted from the incubation medium. The sections of both types were then washed (PBS, 3 x 10 min, RT) and incubated with the secondary antibody consisting of 1:100 diluted Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated donkey anti-rabbit (1 h, RT, Molecular Probes). This fluorochrome allows short illumination times, thereby precluding autofluorescence. After a final wash (3 x 30 min, RT), sections were mounted in medium (Vectashield from Vector) containing 4',6-diamino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) as a nuclear counterstain. To distinguish smooth muscle cells from endothelial cells, F-actin was labeled in additional sections using Cy3-conjungated-rhodamine phalloidin (1:60, Molecular Probes), incubated together with the secondary antibody. The vascular localization of EP3 and EP1 receptor protein was studied using an inverted fluorescence microscope (Axiovert 200 Marianas, Zeiss). Images were generated with a x10 air and x40 oil-immersion objective (numerical aperture 0.50 and 1.30, respectively; Zeiss) and recorded using a cooled CCD camera (1,280 x 1,024 pixels, Cooke Sensicam, Cooke, Tonawanda, NY). This microscope and camera, as well as the data viewing and processing, including deconvolution, were conducted and controlled by Slidebook software (Slidebook version 4.0, Intelligent Images Innovations, Denver, CO).

Statistical analyses. All values are presented as means ± SE; n refers to the number of animals studied. Statistical analyses were performed using Prism 4 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Differences within concentration-response curves were assessed using one-way ANOVA for repeated measurements followed by a Newman-Keuls post hoc test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Differences between groups were assessed using ANOVA followed by Student's t-test. For multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was applied.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Effects of PGE2 on different segments of the preglomerular vascular tree in isolated hydronephrotic rat kidneys. As shown in Fig. 1, marked differences in the response to PGE2 were seen along the preglomerular vascular tree. Under basal conditions (Fig. 1A), proximal and intermediate ILAs (see Table 1 for basal values) manifested a concentration-dependent constriction to PGE2, which appeared to increase in magnitude with their diameter. Thus, at the highest PGE2 concentration, i.e., 1 µmol/l, mean diameters were reduced by 15.4 ± 3.7% in proximal ILAs (>70 µm, n = 5) and by 12.0 ± 3.4 and 8.0 ± 3.3% in intermediate ILAs (50–70 and 30–50 µm, respectively; n = 6 and 5). By contrast, the smallest caliber ILAs (i.e., distal) and AAs were hardly or not affected under basal conditions by increasing concentrations of PGE2 (Fig. 1A).


Figure 1
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Effects of PGE2 on successive segments of the preglomerular vascular tree in isolated, perfused hydronephrotic rat kidneys. A: under basal conditions, PGE2 elicited vasoconstriction of interlobular arteries (ILAs) of >30 µm. B: in contrast, during treatment with the vasoconstrictor ANG II (0.1 nmol/l), PGE2 responses displayed a gradual change from vasodilation at the small-caliber sites to again vasoconstriction in the largest ILAs, with a biphasic response in between; n = 5–6. *P < 0.05 vs. basal condition.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Diameters of successive segments of the preglomerular vascular tree in isolated hydronephrotic rat kidneys under basal conditions and after treatment with PGE2 (1 µmol/l) or ANG II (0.1 nmol/l)

 
The vascular bed of isolated hydronephrotic rat kidneys is almost maximally vasodilated. Thus PGE2 effects were also assessed after the induction of vascular tone with ANG II to observe possible vasodilator responses. As shown in Fig. 1B, ANG II-induced vasoconstriction was inversely related to the basal ILA diameters. Proximal ILAs (n = 5) failed to respond to ANG II, while subsequent segments (see Table 1) were reduced in diameter by 7.8 ± 6.2 (n = 6), 21.2 ± 6.3 (n = 6), and 51.1 ± 7.8% (n = 6), respectively. AAs exhibited a similar level of vasoconstriction to ANG II to distal ILAs (48.0 ± 3.9%, n = 4). In all vessels exhibiting tone, PGE2 completely reversed at lower concentrations (≤10 nmol/l) the ANG II-induced vasoconstriction. In distal ILAs and AAs, higher PGE2 concentrations (>10 nmol/l) had no further effect, with mean vessel diameters remaining near basal values (24.2 ± 1.2 and 20.7 ± 0.3 µm at 1 µmol/l PGE2, respectively). In intermediate ILAs, however, the diameter increase at lower PGE2 concentrations was followed by a subsequent diameter decrease. At the level of the proximal ILAs, no vasodilation to PGE2 was observed. Instead, also in the presence of ANG II, PGE2 decreased their diameters in a concentration-dependent manner similar to that observed under basal conditions (to 79.3 ± 4.5 µm at 1 µmol/l).

Effects of PGE2 on proximal ILAs obtained from normal rat kidneys. Because in the experiments reported above proximal ILAs exhibited the largest vasoconstrictor response, proximal ILAs isolated from normal kidneys were studied as well. As shown in Fig. 2A, these isolated ILAs also displayed a concentration-dependent diameter reduction in response to PGE2. Significant vasoconstriction occurred from 10 nmol/l PGE2 onward (14.8 ± 3.0%), up to 34.9 ± 2.6% at the highest concentration of PGE2 (1 µmol/l). Removal of the endothelium did not prevent but enhanced the vasoconstrictor response of isolated ILAs to PGE2 (Fig. 2A). At 1 µmol/l PGE2, diameters of endothelium-denuded ILAs were decreased by 62.0 ± 6.9% (n = 4). Also after induction of a moderate amount of vascular tone (~15%) using norepinephrine, isolated ILAs only displayed PGE2-induced vasoconstriction (Fig. 2B). Thus, in the presence of norepinephrine, PGE2 at concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, and 1 µmol/l decreased mean diameters of ILAs by 18.4 ± 3.6, 33.3 ± 5.6, and 45.0 ± 5.7% (n = 6), respectively.


Figure 2
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. PGE2-induced vasoconstriction of proximal ILAs obtained from normal kidneys. A: note enhanced response of endothelium-denuded vessels (solid symbols). B: furthermore, also after the induction of vascular tone using norepinephrine (NE; 30–70 nmol/l), proximal ILAs only displayed concentration-dependent vasoconstriction; n = 4–7. EC, endothelium. *P < 0.05 vs. basal condition and NE-induced tone, respectively. #P < 0.05 vs. control vessels.

 
Characterization of the receptor subtype mediating vasoconstriction of ILAs to PGE2. Initially, the role of the EP1 receptor in the vasoconstriction of ILAs to PGE2 was assessed. As shown in Fig. 3A, a selective EP1 blocker had no effect on basal diameters of isolated proximal ILAs (n = 7). Furthermore, PGE2-induced vasoconstriction of isolated ILAs was not inhibited. Instead, the blocker significantly increased their reactivity to PGE2, as depicted in Fig. 3B. During EP1 receptor blockade, the PGE2-induced vasoconstriction of ILAs increased from 14.8 ± 3.0 to 23.8 ± 1.9% (P = 0.03 vs. PGE2 alone), from 26.0 ± 2.4 to 38.3 ± 4.6% (P = 0.05), and from 34.9 ± 2.6 to 46.1 ± 4.1% (P = 0.04) at 0.01, 0.1, and 1 µmol/l PGE2, respectively.


Figure 3
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Failure of the selective EP1 receptor antagonist SC512322 (1 µmol/l) to prevent PGE2-induced vasoconstriction of isolated proximal ILAs from normal kidneys. Shown are absolute data (A) and %change from pre-PGE2 values (B) for both the blocked and control condition; n = 7. *P < 0.05 vs. pre-PGE2 value. #P < 0.05 vs. PGE2 alone.

 
Because a commercially available antagonist for the other constrictive PGE2 receptor, i.e., EP3, is lacking, its potential role in ILA vasoconstriction was investigated using the EP1/EP3 agonist sulprostone. As shown in Fig. 4A, sulprostone reduced diameters of isolated ILAs in a concentration-dependent manner. The highest concentration of sulprostone, i.e., 1 µmol/l, reduced diameters by 42.1 ± 5.1% (to 49.0 ± 3.8 µm, n = 7). Pretreatment with the selective EP1 antagonist did not affect sulprostone-induced vasoconstriction (Fig. 4, B and C, n = 6). Moreover, when the potencies of sulprostone and PGE2 in the presence of the EP1 blocker were compared, the concentration-response curves to both agonists were superimposable (Fig. 4D), indicating that the vasoconstrictor actions of PGE2 on ILAs are mediated by the EP3 receptor.


Figure 4
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Vasoconstrictor effects of the EP1/EP3 receptor agonist sulprostone on isolated proximal ILAs from normal kidneys. Shown are absolute data under control conditions (n = 7, A) and after pretreatment with the selective EP1 receptor antagonist SC512322 (1 µmol/l, n = 6, B), respectively. C: comparison of %change from presulprostone values. D: comparison of effects of sulprostone and PGE2 during EP1 receptor blockade. Note that the concentration-response curves for both agonists are superimposable, indicating that PGE2-induced vasoconstriction is mediated by EP3 receptor activation. *P < 0.05 vs. presulprostone values.

 
To exclude a potential involvement of TXA2 receptors in the PGE2 response, PGE2 concentration-response curves were also constructed in the presence of a specific TXA2 receptor blocker (SQ29548; 1 µmol/l). As shown in Fig. 5, TXA2 receptor blockade did not prevent PGE2-induced vasoconstriction, supporting our conclusion as mentioned above.


Figure 5
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. Failure of selective thromboxane A2 (TXA2) receptor antagonist SQ29548 (1 µmol/l) to prevent PGE2-induced vasoconstriction of isolated proximal ILAs from normal kidneys; n = 5. *P < 0.05 vs. pre-PGE2 values.

 
Expression of EP3 receptor protein in proximal ILAs. As shown in Fig. 6, EP3 receptor protein was present in smooth muscle cells of isolated proximal ILAs. Near the nucleus, labeling was more dense (Fig. 6G, white arrows), probably reflecting receptor protein present in the perinuclear Golgi. In addition, EP3 receptor protein was also present on endothelial cells, showing a similar distribution as in smooth muscle cells. In contrast to EP3, labeling of smooth muscle cells was relatively weak when an anti-EP1 antibody was used (Fig. 7, F–J). Immunofluorescence of endothelial cells, on the other hand, was very high. Dense labeling near the nucleus was not observed when the anti-EP1 receptor antibody was used.


Figure 6
View larger version (70K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6. Presence of EP3 receptor protein in vascular smooth muscle cells and endothelial cells of isolated proximal ILAs of normal kidneys. Shown are EP3 receptor protein (green), F-actin (red), and nuclei (blue). A–C: x10 objective. D–F: x40 oil-immersion objective. G: deconvoluted image using x40 objective. White arrows, examples of dense EP3 receptor labeling near the nucleus of smooth muscle and endothelial cells.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (65K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 7. Comparison of EP3 (A–E) and EP1 (F–J) receptor expression in consecutive proximal ILA slides. Shown are EP3 or EP1 receptor protein (green), F-actin (red), and nuclei (blue). A–C and F–H: x10 objective. D and I: x40 oil-immersion objective. E and J: deconvoluted image using x40 objective. Note that in contrast to EP3, EP1 receptor staining is most dense in the endothelium. Also note that in I, the elastin membrane is visible as a black line adjacent to the fluorescent endothelium; with the short illumination times used, the elastin membrane did not show autofluorescence.

 
Effects of PGE2 on renal hemodynamics in isolated normal kidneys. As shown in Fig. 8, PGE2 predominantly increased renal perfusion in isolated normal kidneys. Thus, at concentrations ≤0.1 µmol/l, PGE2 increased renal perfusate flow both under basal conditions (Fig. 8A; from 19.3 ± 2.3 to 20.6 ± 2.5 ml·min–1·g–1; n = 6) and after pretreatment with ANG II (Fig. 8B; from 9.1 ± 0.9 to 16.8 ± 1.3 ml·min–1·g–1; n = 6). In both cases, this initial flow increase was partially reversed at the highest PGE2 concentration of 1 µmol/l (basal: to 18.1 ± 2.5 ml·min–1·g–1; ANG II to 15.8 ± 1.4 ml·min–1·g–1; for both P < 0.05 vs. 0.1 µmol/l PGE2).


Figure 8
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 8. Effects of PGE2 on renal perfusate flow in normal isolated kidneys during control conditions (A) and after preconstriction with ANG II (0.1 nmol/l; B); n = 6. *P < 0.05 vs. pre-PGE2 values. {dagger}P < 0.05 vs. 0.1 µmol/l PGE2.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
We found that PGE2 induced exclusive vasoconstriction of proximal ILAs both in hydronephrotic rat kidneys and in those isolated from normal kidneys. Smaller vessels, on the other hand, i.e., distal ILAs and AAs, were found to dilate to PGE2. Treatment of isolated proximal ILAs with drugs interacting with the different PGE2 receptor subtypes indicated a role for EP3 receptors in PGE2-induced vasoconstriction. The presence of this receptor subtype on smooth muscle cells and also on endothelial cells of proximal ILAs was confirmed using immunohistochemical staining. Adding PGE2 to normal isolated kidneys induced a biphasic flow response; i.e., flow increased at PGE2 concentrations ≤0.1 µmol/l and subsequently decreased at 1 µmol/l PGE2.

Our study is the first to demonstrate that the vasoconstrictor action of PGE2 in the kidney is confined to the larger preglomerular vessels. In hydronephrotic kidneys, we mapped the PGE2 response along the preglomerular tree, finding vasoconstriction of proximal ILAs, while distal ILAs and AAs only manifested PGE2-induced vasodilation. This latter observation is consistent with the response of AAs observed in most other studies (4, 8, 24), although PGE2-induced vasoconstriction of these vessels has also occasionally been reported (9, 24). In addition, we found that intermediate ILAs displayed a biphasic response to increasing concentrations of PGE2, i.e., vasodilation followed by vasoconstriction. Our data indicate that the actions of PGE2 along the preglomerular vascular tree gradually change from exclusively vasoconstriction upstream to vasodilation downstream. A similar response pattern has been reported for serotonin (5), suggesting heterogeneity in receptor expression of the different preglomerular segments.

Renal prostaglandin production has been reported to alter during hydronephrosis (14, 15), which could have influenced reactivity of the larger ILAs to PGE2. Therefore, we also performed single-vessel experiments using tissue from normal kidneys. We found that PGE2 elicited vasoconstriction of isolated proximal ILAs, both under basal conditions and after the induction of vascular tone. Thus responses were similar to those observed in hydronephrotic rat kidneys, indicating a general action of PGE2 on proximal ILAs. In addition, we found in normal isolated kidneys that with increasing concentrations of PGE2 only the highest PGE2 concentration reversed the increase to a decrease in renal perfusate flow, indicating that, also in this preparation, not all vessels but probably only the larger ones constrict in response to PGE2.

Of the different PGE2 receptors, EP1 and EP3 have been shown to activate signal transduction pathways leading to contraction of smooth muscle cells (3, 16). In proximal ILAs, our findings indicate that the vasoconstrictor actions of PGE2 involve EP3 receptors. First, we found that PGE2-induced vasoconstriction of isolated vessels could not be abolished by selective TXA2 or EP1 receptor blockade. Furthermore, during EP1 receptor antagonism, concentration-response curves to PGE2 and to the EP1/EP3 agonist sulprostone were superimposable. Removal of the endothelium did not prevent the vasoconstriction to PGE2, indicating that EP3 receptors are activated directly on smooth muscle cells. The presence of EP3 receptor protein on smooth muscle cells was confirmed by immunohistochemical staining. By contrast, EP1 receptor labeling was predominantly found at the level of the endothelium. Tang et al. (24), who in contrast to our and various other studies (4, 8), observed afferent arteriolar constriction to high PGE2 concentrations, also found that this response was mediated via EP3 receptors.

We observed that when isolated proximal ILAs were pretreated with a selective EP1 receptor antagonist, PGE2-induced vasoconstriction was not inhibited but rather potentiated, indicating that EP1 receptor activation stimulates a vasodilator process. This observation seems consistent with the study of Audoly et al. (1) showing that PGE2 lowered arterial pressure to a lesser extent in male EP1 receptor knockout mice than in wild-type mice. Our immunohistochemical data indicate that EP1 receptors are predominantly expressed on endothelial cells. This observation extends the findings of previous studies demonstrating the presence of EP1 receptors in renal vascular structures (11, 13, 18). Thus EP1 receptor activation may stimulate endothelial cells to produce and release vasodilatory factors modulating EP3-mediated constriction. Indeed, we found that after deliberate damage of endothelial cells vasoconstrictor responses to PGE2 were enhanced. Furthermore, in cultured cells, EP1 receptor activation has been shown to increase intracellular Ca2+ concentration (26), which, in endothelial cells, is known to stimulate nitric oxide production (6).

Our immunohistochemical staining revealed that EP3 receptors were present on both smooth muscle and endothelial cells. Thus, besides by directly activating smooth muscle cells, PGE2 might also induce vasoconstriction of ILAs by stimulating endothelial cells to release vasoconstrictor agents. Using endothelium-denuded proximal ILAs, we investigated the possible contribution of endothelial cells to the vasoconstrictor actions of PGE2. We found in these vessels that PGE2 was still able to induce vasoconstriction, suggesting that EP3 as well as EP1 receptors on endothelial cells fulfill a different role.

A final comment should be made regarding our flow data. The influence of PGE2 on flow in normal kidneys was biphasic. At concentrations ≤0.1 µmol/l, flow increased both under basal conditions and after preconstriction with ANG II. This finding is consistent with previous data obtained in this model (7, 10) and likely reflects the vasodilatory response of the small preglomerular vessels to PGE2. However, at a concentration of 1 µmol/l, flow decreased in both situations. At this concentration, the arterioles and small arteries, which are the most important resistance regulators, are completely dilated (Fig. 1B) and, hence, vasoconstriction of the larger arteries becomes visible in the flow signal.

In summary, the present study demonstrates that PGE2 elicits vasoconstriction of proximal ILAs, mediated via EP3 receptor activation. Toward the glomerulus, the vasoconstrictor effect of PGE2 gradually changes to PGE2-induced vasodilation.


   GRANTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
REFERENCES
 
This study was supported by Grant C 00.1903 from the Dutch Kidney Foundation.


   FOOTNOTES
 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: G.-J. Tangelder, Laboratory for Physiology, Institute for Cardiovascular Research, VU Univ. Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: geertjan.tangelder{at}vumc.nl)

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Audoly LP, Tilley SL, Goulet J, Key M, Nguyen M, Stock JL, McNeish JD, Koller BH, Coffman TM. Identification of specific EP receptors responsible for the hemodynamic effects of PGE2. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 277: H924–H930, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Breyer MD, Breyer RM. Prostaglandin E receptors and the kidney. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 279: F12–F23, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Breyer RM, Bagdassarian CK, Myers SA, Breyer MD. Prostanoid receptors: subtypes and signaling. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 41: 661–690, 2001.
  4. Edwards RM. Effects of prostaglandins on vasoconstrictor action in isolated renal arterioles. Am J Physiol Renal Fluid Electrolyte Physiol 248: F779–F784, 1985.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Endlich K, Kuhn R, Steinhausen M. Visualization of serotonin effects on renal vessels of rats. Kidney Int 43: 314–323, 1993.[Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Fleming I, Busse R. Signal transduction of eNOS activation. Cardiovasc Res 43: 532–541, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Haylor J, Towers J. Renal vasodilator activity of prostaglandin E2 in the rat anaesthetized with pentobarbitone. Br J Pharmacol 76: 131–137, 1982.[Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Imig JD, Breyer MD, Breyer RM. Contribution of prostaglandin EP2 receptors to renal microvascular reactivity in mice. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 283: F415–F422, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Inscho EW, Carmines PK, Navar LG. Prostaglandin influences on afferent arteriolar responses to vasoconstrictor agonists. Am J Physiol Renal Fluid Electrolyte Physiol 259: F157–F163, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Jackson EK, Heidemann HT, Branch RA, Gerkens JF. Low dose intrarenal infusions of PGE2, PGI2, and 6-keto-PGE1 vasodilate the in vivo rat kidney. Circ Res 51: 67–72, 1982.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Jensen BL, Mann B, Skott O, Kurtz A. Differential regulation of renal prostaglandin receptor mRNAs by dietary salt intake in the rat. Kidney Int 56: 528–537, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Loutzenhiser R. In situ studies of renal arteriolar function using the in vitro-perfused hydronephrotic rat kidney. Int Rev Exp Path 36: 145–160, 1996.
  13. Morath R, Klein T, Seyberth HW, Nusing RM. Immunolocalization of the four prostaglandin E2 receptor proteins EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4 in human kidney. J Am Soc Nephrol 10: 1851–1860, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Morrison AR, Nishikawa K, Needleman P. Unmasking of thromboxane A2 synthesis by ureteral obstruction in the rabbit kidney. Nature 269: 259–260, 1977.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Morrison AR, Nishikawa K, Needleman P. Thromboxane A2 biosynthesis in the ureter obstructed isolated perfused kidney of the rabbit. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 205: 1–8, 1978.[Free Full Text]
  16. Narumiya S, Sugimoto Y, Ushikubi F. Prostanoid receptors: structures, properties, and functions. Physiol Rev 79: 1193–1226, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Navar LG, Inscho EW, Maijd DSA, Imig JD, Harrison-Bernard LM, Mitchell KD. Paracrine regulation of the renal microcirculation. Physiol Rev 76: 425–536, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Purdy KE, Arendshorst WJ. EP1 and EP4 receptors mediate prostaglandin E2 actions in the microcirculation of rat kidney. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 279: F755–F764, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Steinhausen M, Endlich K. Controversies on glomerular filtration from Ludwig to the present. Eur J Physiol 432: R73–R81, 1996.[Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Steinhausen M, Snoei H, Parekh N, Baker R, Johnson PC. Hydronephrosis: a new method to visualize vas afferens, efferens and glomerular network. Kidney Int 23: 794–806, 1983.[Web of Science][Medline]
  21. Takeuchi K, Takahashi N, Abe T, Abe K. Two isoforms of the rat kidney EP3 receptor derived by alternative RNA splicing: intrarenal expression co-localization. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 199: 834–840, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Takeuchi K, Takahashi N, Abe T, Ito O, Tsutsumi E, Taniyama Y, Abe K. Functional difference between two isoforms of rat kidney prostaglandin receptor EP3 subtype. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 203: 1897–1903, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  23. Takeuchi K, Takahashi N, Kato T, Abe T, Taniyama Y, Tsutsumi E, Ito O, Nakagawara K, Abe K. Functional analysis and chromosomal gene assignment of rat kidney prostaglandin EP3 receptor. Kidney Int Suppl 55: S183–S186, 1996.[Medline]
  24. Tang L, Loutzenhiser K, Loutzenhiser R. Biphasic actions of prostaglandin E2 on the renal afferent arteriole: role of EP3 and EP4 receptors. Circ Res 86: 663–670, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. van Rodijnen WF, van Lambalgen TA, van Wijhe MH, Tangelder GJ, ter Wee PM. Renal microvascular actions of angiotensin II fragments. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 283: F86–F92, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Watabe A, Sugimoto Y, Honda A, Irie A, Namba T, Negishi M, Ito S, Narumiya S, Ichikawa A. Cloning and expression of cDNA for a mouse EP1 subtype of prostaglandin E receptor. J Biol Chem 268: 20175–20178, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol.Home page
G. A. Eppel, D. L. Jacono, M. Shirai, K. Umetani, R. G. Evans, and J. T. Pearson
Contrast angiography of the rat renal microcirculation in vivo using synchrotron radiation
Am J Physiol Renal Physiol, May 1, 2009; 296(5): F1023 - F1031.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
B. Ponnuchamy and R. A. Khalil
Cellular mediators of renal vascular dysfunction in hypertension
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, April 1, 2009; 296(4): R1001 - R1018.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
B. L. Hodnett, J. A. Dearman, C. B. Carter, and R. L. Hester
Attenuated PGI2 synthesis in obese Zucker rats
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, March 1, 2009; 296(3): R715 - R721.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Exp PhysiolHome page
B. Badzynska and J. Sadowski
Opposed effects of prostaglandin E2 on perfusion of rat renal cortex and medulla: interactions with the renin-angiotensin system
Exp Physiol, December 1, 2008; 93(12): 1292 - 1302.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol.Home page
Y. Jin, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, B. Yang, and W.-H. Wang
PGE2 inhibits apical K channels in the CCD through activation of the MAPK pathway
Am J Physiol Renal Physiol, October 1, 2007; 293(4): F1299 - F1307.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
292/3/F1094    most recent
00351.2005v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Rodijnen, W. F.
Right arrow Articles by Tangelder, G.-J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Rodijnen, W. F.
Right arrow Articles by Tangelder, G.-J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2007 by the American Physiological Society.