Human kidney cortex and medulla contain ETA and ETB receptors in a 30:70 ratio, which can be identified using selective ligands like sarafotoxin-6c and BQ123.
Should not yet alter ET antagonist strategies in kidney disease; leaves open the functional and therapeutic relevance of renal receptor distribution.
High affinity and high density endothelin (ET)-binding sites were identified in membranes prepared from human kidney cortex and medulla. Saturation binding experiments performed in membranes prepared from cortex and medulla using [125I]ET-1 and [125I]ET-3 revealed that the proportion of [125I]ET-3-binding sites was 30-35% less than that of [125I]ET-1-binding sites. The apparent dissociation constants and maximum binding for [125I]ET-1 and [125I]ET-3 to membranes from cortex were 91 +/- 5 pM and 165 +/- 10 fmol/mg protein, and 117 +/- 9 pM and 110 +/- 7 fmol/mg protein, respectively, whereas in medulla they were 139 +/- 10 pM and 360 +/- 11 fmol/mg protein, and 142 +/- 11 pM and 245 +/- 15 fmol/mg protein, respectively. In the presence of 10 nM sarafotoxin-6c, which is selective for ETB receptors, [125I]ET-1 binding was decreased by 65-70%, whereas [125I]ET-3 binding was totally abolished, suggesting that 65-70% of [125I]ET-1 binding and 100% of [125I]ET-3 binding was to ETB receptors. This was further confirmed by the use of a cyclic pentapeptide [cyclo(D-Trp,D-Asp,L-Pro, D-Val,L-Leu)] (BQ123), which is selective for ETA receptors. In the presence of 1 microM BQ123, [125I]ET-1 binding was decreased by 25-30%, whereas [125I]ET-3 binding was unaffected, confirming that 30-35% of ET receptors belong to the ETA subtypes, and that [125I]ET-1 bound to both ETA and ETB receptors with the same high affinity, but [125I]ET-3 bound only to ETB receptors with high affinity. These results suggest that human kidney cortex and medulla contain ETA and ETB receptors in a ratio of 30:70, and that sarafotoxin-6c and BQ123 are valuable tools in identifying the subtype of ET receptors in various tissues.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nambi et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: