Understanding the Impact of Partial Renal Artery Occlusion on Kidney Function

  • Thread starter Thread starter nokia8650
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
AI Thread Summary
Partial renal artery occlusion leads to decreased pressure in the affected kidney, stimulating renin secretion and increasing angiotensin II levels. This process causes constriction of the efferent arteriole in the affected kidney, which can also affect the other kidney. The discussion suggests that the correct answer to the question is C, indicating that the efferent arteriole of the other kidney will constrict as a compensatory mechanism. Increased renin secretion from both kidneys is a result of this occlusion, but the primary focus is on the efferent arteriole response. Understanding these physiological responses is crucial for assessing kidney function under partial occlusion conditions.
nokia8650
Messages
216
Reaction score
0
i was struggling with the following question:

Partial occlusion of one renal artery is likely to result in which ONE of the following:
A. Increased renin secretion from both kidneys
B. Increased sodium excretion
C. Constriction of the efferent arteriole of the other kidney
D. Dilatation of the efferent arteriole of the other kidney
E. A gradual reduction in arterial blood pressure over time

Please could someone explain the answer?

Thank you very much.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm pretty sure it is C. The reduced pressure in the afferent arteriole in the kidney stimulates renin release by the affected kidney, which increases circulating angiotensin II and aldosterone. I'm pretty sure the efferent arteriole constriction is mediated by angiotensin II so both efferents will be constricted.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top