We welcome the opportunity to reply to the elegant editorial of Prof. Ehmke 1 in which he highlights contradicting conclusions reached by Hinrichs et al. 2 and by us 3 in two recently published articles in Acta Physiologica. In our reply, we first comment on some technical aspects discussed by Prof. Ehmke as possible explanations for the discrepant conclusions reached in the two studies. In addition, we highlight some in vivo data reported by Hinrichs et al. 2 which in our view do not oppose but rather support our conclusion that urokinase, also known as urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA), is not essential for sodium retention in nephrotic syndrome.