Skip to main content
. 2019 May 28;17(2):1559325819853651. doi: 10.1177/1559325819853651

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Histopathological photographs of renal tissue in the experimental groups. A, Periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) stain, original magnification × 100. (1) Sham group: no damage; (2) IRI group: destroyed tubules with flat epithelial cells lacking nuclear staining and lumen congestion; (3) RIPC + IRI group: mild damage with rounding of epithelial cells and dilated tubular lumen; and (4) L-NAME + RIPC + IRI group: severe damage with flattened epithelial cells, loss of nuclear staining, dilated lumen, and lumen congestion; (5) RIPC group: no damage. B, Damage score on the basis of the PAS staining. Renal tissue damage was lower in the RIPC + IRI group than in the IRI group. In the L-NAME + RIPC + IRI group, renal tissue damage was significantly higher than in the RIPC + IRI group. *P < .05 versus the sham group; P <.05 versus the IRI group; § P <.05 versus the RIPC + IRI group; P < .05 versus the RIPC + IRI group. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 6 rats/group). IRI indicates ischemia reperfusion injury; L-NAME, N-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester; PAS, periodic acid-Schiff; RIPC, remote ischemic preconditioning; SEM, standard error of the mean.