Donald Houghton

School of Medicine, Pathology

Scopus Publication Detail

The publication detail shows the title, authors (with indicators showing other profiled authors), information on the publishing organization, abstract and a link to the article in Scopus. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the publication.

Effect of amiloride on experimental gentamicin nephrotoxicity

J. Purnell; D.C. Houghton; G.A. Porter; W.M. Bennett (Profiled Author: Donald Houghton)

Nephron. 1985;40(2):166-170.

Potassium and magnesium deficiency have been reported as risk factors for experimental gentamicin nephrotoxicity. Amiloride, a potassium-sparing diuretic, also leads to increased renal magnesium reabsorption. Amiloride, 2 mg/kg/day, was given to groups of 8-12 Fischer 344 rats receiving gentamicin, 20 mg/kg b.i.d., for 3, 7, 10 and 14 days. Control animals received the vehicle for gentamicin, amiloride alone or gentamicin alone. The degree of renal failure and weight loss were similar in gentamicin and gentamicin + amiloride groups at all time points despite increases in serum potassium and magnesium in the amiloride-treated animals. Tubular dysfunction as assessed by depression of renal cortical slice uptake of p-aminohippurate and N-methylnicotinamide was not improved by the addition of amiloride. In addition, a comparable degree of tubular necrosis and regeneration was observed in all gentamicin-treated groups. Maximum gentamicin concentrations in the renal cortex did not differ. Thus, despite reduction of urinary losses of potassium and magnesium with resultant increased serum values, amiloride did not protect against experimental gentamicin nephrotoxicity. The tubular electrolyte wasting noted clinically is likely to be a result, rather than a cause of proximal tubular cell damage.

PMID: 4000346    

Scientific Context

This section shows information related to the publication - computed using the fingerprint of the publication - including related publications, related experts with fingerprints representing significant amounts of overlap between their fingerprint and this publication. The red dots indicate whether those experts or terms appear within the publication, thereby showing potential and actual connections.