Quantitative Morphology in Kidney Research
February 13-14, 2012 Conference Videos

Conference Summary
Kevin Lemley, University of Southern California

Video Transcript

00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:14,900
KEVIN LEMLEY: So, my charge was to summarize the whole thing. No problem. I can only say one thing about John Bertram’s talk:

00:00:14,900 --> 00:00:29,300
when everybody gets back to your institution, go on the website and have everybody who has to do anything, look at it, maybe multiple times. I think

00:00:29,300 --> 00:00:38,766
Wendy might agree with this that it got harder to summarize people at the end, but unlike decreased glomerular number, which we’ve been

00:00:38,766 --> 00:00:49,432
thinking of for a while, that perhaps certainly decreased glomerular number related to how much work you have to do, how big you are, but

00:00:49,433 --> 00:00:58,533
also increased glomerular volume and increased glomerular volume heterogeneity may be very important parameters to pay attention to.

00:00:58,533 --> 00:01:06,566
Yesterday, before either Kevin or Norbert got a chance to do anything they were asked for multiple times, because people said over and over

00:01:06,566 --> 00:01:15,566
and over again, and again today, “What we really need is in vivo methods to estimate glomerular number and then we won’t have to see

00:01:15,566 --> 00:01:26,332
stereologists and model-based people doing battle all the time.” Just get the in vivos. Erwin showed us that there are some QTLs that may

00:01:26,333 --> 00:01:37,799
affect podocyte susceptibility to loss and also, I think, illustrated that some of these quantitative things may actually be very closely related as the

00:01:37,800 --> 00:01:46,466
discussion showed afterwards, and we need to be very clear on what we’re actually deducing from our data. Roger Wiggins gave a

00:01:46,466 --> 00:01:54,799
demonstration of another model-based method, essentially the XY version rather than the Z version of the thick-thin method, and therefore

00:01:54,800 --> 00:02:07,433
gave us one more thing to debate and try to validate or disvalidate against gold standard methods. Ms. Thompson from the FDA basically

00:02:07,433 --> 00:02:16,199
said that if we’re going to be trying to sell them reasonably likely surrogates we’d better have some common standard approaches, which

00:02:16,200 --> 00:02:26,166
probably makes sense, especially here in our discussions. Kevin Bennett showed some very interesting and suggestive data, and I should just

00:02:26,166 --> 00:02:38,032
kind of say that Norbert Gretz’s is the same type of thing: for MR, for ex vivo and hopefully soon, at least in animals, in vivo ways of developing

00:02:38,033 --> 00:02:47,199
estimators of at least glomerular number and maybe glomerular number and function together, which would be a great advance. We’ll be to that

00:02:47,200 --> 00:02:55,833
Star Trek scanner where we just scan someone and can tell everything about them. But more work is needed and, in particular, the challenges

00:02:55,833 --> 00:03:05,266
will probably be, if not proportional to body weight for humans versus rats, at least will be greater for humans than for rats and mice.

00:03:05,266 --> 00:03:15,799
Steven Hewitt pointed out something that we’ve only really had thrown in our face when trying to do the NEPTUNE, is that a lot of the things…there

00:03:15,800 --> 00:03:25,233
are some clear advantages to digital microscopy and virtual microscopy but there are probably at least as many challenges as are advantages and

00:03:25,233 --> 00:03:37,833
they have to be overcome. So, I would just like, myself, to thank Jeffrey for the huge amount of work he did putting this conference together on

00:03:37,833 --> 00:03:51,833
rather short notice, and I think it turned out quite well, and I’m happy to sign off.

Date Last Updated: 10/5/2012

General Inquiries may be addressed to:
Office of Communications and Public Liaison
Building 31, Rm 9A06
31 Center Drive, MSC 2560
Bethesda, MD 20892-2560
Phone: 301.496.3583