Nephrotic Syndrome and Subepithelial Deposits in a Mouse Model of Immune-Mediated Anti-Podocyte Glomerulonephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subepithelial immune complex deposition in glomerular disease causes local inflammation and proteinuria by podocyte disruption. A rat model of membranous nephropathy, the passive Heymann nephritis, suggests that Abs against specific podocyte Ags cause subepithelial deposit formation and podocyte foot process disruption. In this study, we present a mouse model in which a polyclonal sheep anti-mouse podocyte Ab caused subepithelial immune complex formation. Mice developed a nephrotic syndrome with severe edema, proteinuria, hypoalbuminemia, and elevated cholesterol and triglycerides. Development of proteinuria was biphasic: an initial protein loss was followed by a second massive increase of protein loss beginning at approximately day 10. By histology, podocytes were swollen. Electron microscopy revealed 60-80% podocyte foot process effacement and subepithelial deposits, but no disruption of the glomerular basement membrane. Nephrin and synaptopodin staining was severely disrupted, and podocyte number was reduced in anti-podocyte serum-treated mice, indicating severe podocyte damage. Immunohistochemistry detected the injected anti-podocyte Ab exclusively along the glomerular filtration barrier. Immunoelectron microscopy localized the Ab to podocyte foot processes and the glomerular basement membrane. Similarly, immunohistochemistry localized mouse IgG to the subepithelial space. The third complement component (C3) was detected in a linear staining pattern along the glomerular basement membrane and in the mesangial hinge region. However, C3-deficient mice were not protected from podocyte damage, indicating a complement-independent mechanism. Twenty proteins were identified as possible Ags to the sheep anti-podocyte serum by mass spectrometry. Together, these data establish a reproducible model of immune-mediated podocyte injury in mice with subepithelial immune complex formation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".