1998
DOI: 10.1172/jci1164
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hyperresponsiveness of vitamin D receptor gene expression to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. A new characteristic of genetic hypercalciuric stone-forming rats.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
93
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(98 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
4
93
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, PTH induced a similar degree of bone resorption in control and GHS rat calvariae. Immunoblot analysis demonstrated a fourfold increase in the level of vitamin D receptors in GHS rat calvariae compared with control calvariae, similar to the increased intestinal receptors described previously (22,30). There was no comparable change in vitamin D receptor RNA levels as measured by slot blot analysis, suggesting the altered regulation of the vitamin D receptor occurs posttranscriptionally.…”
Section: Genetic Hypercalciuric Stone-forming Ratssupporting
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In contrast, PTH induced a similar degree of bone resorption in control and GHS rat calvariae. Immunoblot analysis demonstrated a fourfold increase in the level of vitamin D receptors in GHS rat calvariae compared with control calvariae, similar to the increased intestinal receptors described previously (22,30). There was no comparable change in vitamin D receptor RNA levels as measured by slot blot analysis, suggesting the altered regulation of the vitamin D receptor occurs posttranscriptionally.…”
Section: Genetic Hypercalciuric Stone-forming Ratssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The finding of increased intestinal calcium absorption without an elevation in 1,25(OH) 2 D 3 levels led Li et al to hypothesize that alteration of the receptor for vitamin D might be responsible for the abnormal regulation of calcium by enterocytes (22,143). The intensity of 1,25(OH) 2 D 3 action correlates with receptor number and saturation (144,145) both in rats in vivo (146 -148) and in cell culture studies in vitro (149,150 Yao et al (30) found that the vitamin D receptor in the GHS rats hyperresponded to minimal doses of 1,25(OH) 2 D 3 . The hyperresponsiveness occurred through an increase in vitamin D receptor stability without involving alterations in VDR gene transcription, de novo protein synthesis, or mRNA sequence.…”
Section: Genetic Hypercalciuric Stone-forming Ratsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, significantly higher levels of vitamin D receptors (VDR) have been found in bone, kidney and intestine, compared to normal rats, which would explain the increased sensitivity to 1,25(OH) 2 D 3 that was found in tissues taken from GHS rats [21]. In the gut, vitamin D-responsive genes are expressed at increased levels in response to small doses of 1,25(OH) 2 D 3 [22], with consequent increased expression of proteins related to calcium homeostasis, such as epithelial calcium channels (TRPV6 in gut), and calbindins. The calcium sensing receptor (CaSR) is another 1,25(OH) 2 D 3 -responsive gene, and increased levels of CaSR protein and mRNA have also been found in the kidneys of GHS rats compared to control rats fed the same diet [23].…”
Section: The Genetic Hypercalciuric Ratmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Every 2 wk 24-hr urine collections were obtained. Individual urine collections for the 24 rats divided into the two groups were analyzed separately and were then averaged for the first 6 wk (weeks 1-6), the second 6 wk (weeks [7][8][9][10][11][12], and the final 6 wk (weeks 13-18). Ctl, GHS rats fed a standard 1.2% calcium diet with 5% hydroxyproline added; Thz, rats fed as in Ctl with added chlorthalidone (Thz, 1 mg/15 g of food to provide approximately 4 to 5 mg/kg body weight per 24 h); *, different from Ctl same time period, P Ͻ 0.05. the second and third time periods, Thz induced a significant decrease in urine pH; however, during the first time period, there was no difference in urine pH between the two groups ( Figure 2, top).…”
Section: Urine Ion Excretion Volume and Phmentioning
confidence: 99%