Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Kidney Int. 2019 May 8;96(2):320–326. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2019.04.014

Figure 2. Roscovitine slows cyst growth in Cep164cKO kidneys.

Figure 2.

(A) Schematic of timeline of roscovitin injections and kidney analysis.

(B) Overview of kidney morphology of vehicle treated control (ctrl) and Cep164cKO kidneys at P14. Scale bar 5mm.

(C) Overview of kidney morphology of roscovitine (150 mg/kg) treated control (ctrl) and Cep164cKO kidneys at P14. Scale bar 5mm.

(D) Roscovitine treatment reduces the kidney weight to body weight ratio in P14 Cep164cKO mice. Vehicle 2.76 ± 0.10, n=5, vs. roscovitine 1.79 ± 0.15, n=6, ***p<0.001.

(E – H) Comparison of hematoxylin and eosin-stained mid-sagittal sections of vehicle treated (E,G) and roscovitine-treated kidneys (F,H) demonstrate a significant reduction in the size of the cortical collecting duct cysts in roscovitine-treated P14 Cep164cKO kidneys.

(I) Cystic index is significantly reduced in P14 Cep164cKO kidneys after roscovitin treatment. Vehicle 52.25 % ± 1.15 %, n=4 vs. roscovitine 28.92 % ± 1.68 %, n=7, **** p<0.0001.

(J) Roscovitine treatment blocks cell cycle activity in Cep164cKO kidneys. Western blotting against markers of cell cycle activity pRb, PCNA, pERK1/2, cyclin A and cyclin D1 are significantly decreased in roscovitine-treated Cep164cKO kidneys at P14 compared to vehicle-treated kidneys. Erk1 and Gapdh are used as loading controls. Phospho-proteins were compared with total protein or GAPDH as loading control for densitometric analysis which is presented graphically in i, ii, iii and iv. i) pRb ctrl vs cKOveh (1 ± 0.2, n=3 vs. 3.6 ± 0.7, n=3), cKOveh vs. cKOros (3.4 ± 0.7, n=3 vs. 0.9 ± 0.0, n=3, *p<0.05); ii) cyclinA ctrl vs. cKOveh (1 ± 0.1, n=3 vs. 2.6 ± 0.1, n=3, **p<0.01), cKOveh vs. cKOros (2.6 ± 0.1, n=3 vs. 1.3 ± 0.1, n=3, **p<0.01); iii) pErk1 ctrl vs. cKOveh (1 ± 0.1, n=3 vs. 4.8 ± 0.6, n=3, **p<0.01), cKOveh vs. cKOros (4.8 ± 0.6, n=3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.2, n=3, *p<0.05); iv) cyclinD1 ctrl vs. cKOveh (1 ± 0.2, n=3 vs. 7.8 ± 0.9, n=3, **p<0.01), cKOveh vs. cKOros (7.8 ± 0.9, n=3 vs. 2.7 ± 0.4, n=3, **p<0.01). Data from 3 individual animals in a given group were used for densitometric analysis.