PURPOSE: In the present study, the authors developed novel models to stimulate blood vessel formation (hemangiogenesis) versus lymphatic vessel formation (lymphangiogenesis) in the cornea. METHODS: Micropellets loaded with high-dose (80 ng) or low-dose (12.5 ng) basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) were placed in BALB/c corneas. Angiogenic responses were analyzed by immunohistochemistry to quantify blood neovessels (BVs) and lymphatic neovessels (LVs) to 3 weeks after implantation. Areas covered by BV and LV were calculated and expressed as a percentage of the total corneal area (percentage BV and percentage LV). Hemangiogenesis (HA) and lymphangiogenesis (LA) were also assessed after antibody blockade of VEGFR-2 or VEGFR-3 RESULTS: Although high-dose bFGF stimulation induced a more potent angiogenic response, the relative LV (RLV=percentage LV/percentage BV x 100) was nearly identical with high- and low-doses of bFGF. Delayed LA responses induced 3 weeks after implantation of high-dose bFGF resulted in a lymphatic vessel-dominant phenotype. Interestingly, the blockade of VEGFR-2 significantly suppressed BV and LV. However, the blockade of VEGFR-3 inhibited only LV (P=0.0002) without concurrent inhibition of BV (P=0.79), thereby resulting in a blood vessel-dominant phenotype CONCLUSIONS: An HA-dominant corneal phenotype can be obtained in BALB/c mice 2 weeks after implantation of an 80-ng bFGF micropellet with VEGFR-3 blockade. Alternatively, an LA-dominant corneal phenotype can be obtained 3 weeks after implantation of an 80-ng bFGF micropellet without supplementary modulating agents. These models will be useful in evaluating the differential contribution of BV and LV to a variety of corneal abnormalities, including transplant rejection, wound healing and microbial keratitis.
PURPOSE: In the present study, the authors developed novel models to stimulate blood vessel formation (hemangiogenesis) versus lymphatic vessel formation (lymphangiogenesis) in the cornea. METHODS: Micropellets loaded with high-dose (80 ng) or low-dose (12.5 ng) basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) were placed in BALB/c corneas. Angiogenic responses were analyzed by immunohistochemistry to quantify blood neovessels (BVs) and lymphatic neovessels (LVs) to 3 weeks after implantation. Areas covered by BV and LV were calculated and expressed as a percentage of the total corneal area (percentage BV and percentage LV). Hemangiogenesis (HA) and lymphangiogenesis (LA) were also assessed after antibody blockade of VEGFR-2 or VEGFR-3 RESULTS: Although high-dose bFGF stimulation induced a more potent angiogenic response, the relative LV (RLV=percentage LV/percentage BV x 100) was nearly identical with high- and low-doses of bFGF. Delayed LA responses induced 3 weeks after implantation of high-dose bFGF resulted in a lymphatic vessel-dominant phenotype. Interestingly, the blockade of VEGFR-2 significantly suppressed BV and LV. However, the blockade of VEGFR-3 inhibited only LV (P=0.0002) without concurrent inhibition of BV (P=0.79), thereby resulting in a blood vessel-dominant phenotype CONCLUSIONS: An HA-dominant corneal phenotype can be obtained in BALB/c mice 2 weeks after implantation of an 80-ng bFGF micropellet with VEGFR-3 blockade. Alternatively, an LA-dominant corneal phenotype can be obtained 3 weeks after implantation of an 80-ng bFGF micropellet without supplementary modulating agents. These models will be useful in evaluating the differential contribution of BV and LV to a variety of corneal abnormalities, including transplant rejection, wound healing and microbial keratitis.
Authors: Ben M Illigens; Akira Yamada; Eugenia V Fedoseyeva; Natalie Anosova; Florence Boisgerault; Anna Valujskikh; Peter S Heeger; Mohamed H Sayegh; Bernhard Boehm; Gilles Benichou Journal: Hum Immunol Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.850
Authors: J C Tille; J Wood; S J Mandriota; C Schnell; S Ferrari; J Mestan; Z Zhu; L Witte; M S Pepper Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Christiane J Bruns; Marissa Shrader; Matthew T Harbison; Charles Portera; Carmen C Solorzano; K-W Jauch; Daniel J Hicklin; Robert Radinsky; Lee M Ellis Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-11-10 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Claus Cursiefen; Jingtai Cao; Lu Chen; Ying Liu; Kazuichi Maruyama; David Jackson; Friedrich E Kruse; Stanley J Wiegand; M Reza Dana; J Wayne Streilein Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Lu Chen; Pedram Hamrah; Claus Cursiefen; Qiang Zhang; Bronislaw Pytowski; J Wayne Streilein; M Reza Dana Journal: Nat Med Date: 2004-07-04 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Lynn K Chang; Guillermo Garcia-Cardeña; Filip Farnebo; Michael Fannon; Emy J Chen; Catherine Butterfield; Marsha A Moses; Richard C Mulligan; Judah Folkman; Arja Kaipainen Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-08-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Mohammad H Dastjerdi; Zahra Sadrai; Daniel R Saban; Qiang Zhang; Reza Dana Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Mary Ann Stepp; James D Zieske; Vickery Trinkaus-Randall; Briana M Kyne; Sonali Pal-Ghosh; Gauri Tadvalkar; Ahdeah Pajoohesh-Ganji Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Danial Roshandel; Medi Eslani; Alireza Baradaran-Rafii; Albert Y Cheung; Khaliq Kurji; Sayena Jabbehdari; Alejandra Maiz; Setareh Jalali; Ali R Djalilian; Edward J Holland Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Catherine Martel; Wenjun Li; Brian Fulp; Andrew M Platt; Emmanuel L Gautier; Marit Westerterp; Robert Bittman; Alan R Tall; Shu-Hsia Chen; Michael J Thomas; Daniel Kreisel; Melody A Swartz; Mary G Sorci-Thomas; Gwendalyn J Randolph Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 14.808