The hypoproliferative anemia in chronic renal failure has been assumed to be the result of decreased erythropoietin (Ep) production by the damaged kidney and of the shortening of erythrocyte survival. However, many in vitro studies suggest that erythropoietic inhibitors in uremic plasma may contribute to the anemia. To determine the in vivo relevance of uremic inhibitors, increasing amounts of Ep as Ep-rich plasma were infused into six uremic sheep, and their erythropoietic responses were compared with those of nine normal sheep receiving similar amounts of Ep-rich plasma. Three sheep were studied in both normal and uremic states. Ep-rich plasma was obtained from phenylhydrazine- and phlebotomy-induced anemic sheep. Stable uremia was created by subtotal nephrectomy. Erythropoiesis was quantitated by reticulocyte response, ferrokinetics (plasma iron turnover and marrow transit time), and by hemoglobin C synthesis. Ep-rich plasma stimulated erythropoiesis similarly in uremic and normal sheep, regardless of the degree of uremia. Nondialyzed uremic sheep responded as well as dialyzed animals. The anemia was corrected in the uremic dialyzed animals. The anemia was corrected in the uremic sheep after 15-40 daily infusions of Ep-rich plasma, the total dosage depending on the severity of the anemia. Polycythemia was induced when the infusions were continued. Reticulocytes, plasma iron turnover, and erythrocyte mass changes increased as the amount of Ep-rich plasma was increased. These dose-response effects, coupled with the identical erythropoietic response in normal and uremic sheep given the same amount of Ep-rich plasma, imply that there are no physiologically significant erythropoietic inhibitors in uremia.
J W Eschbach, J Mladenovic, J F Garcia, P W Wahl, J W Adamson
Usage data is cumulative from January 2024 through January 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 135 | 2 |
41 | 20 | |
Scanned page | 224 | 11 |
Citation downloads | 29 | 0 |
Totals | 429 | 33 |
Total Views | 462 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.