PURPOSE: To examine retinal function using the full-field electroretinogram (ERG) during and after acute intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation in wild-type mice. METHODS: IOP was elevated by anterior chamber cannulation in wild-type C57/BL6 mice. The pressure-function relationship was determined by IOP elevation in steps from baseline to 80 mm Hg. The rate of functional recovery was assessed for 60 minutes after an IOP spike of 50 mm Hg for 30 minutes. During and immediately after IOP elevation, scotopic ERG signals were recorded in response to dim and bright flashes (-4.54, -2.23, and 0.34 log cd x s x m(-2)) and analyzed for photoreceptoral (a-wave), ON-bipolar (b-wave), oscillatory potentials (OPs), and scotopic threshold responses (positive [p]STR/negative [n] STR). A full ERG protocol was collected 2 days before and 7 days after the single 50-mm Hg IOP spike. RESULTS: The pSTR was most sensitive to IOP elevation with 50% amplitude loss (mu) at 41 mm Hg (mu, 95% confidence limits (CL): 37.7, 45.6) followed by nSTR at 45 mm Hg (95% CL: 41.0, 49.1). pSTR was significantly more sensitive than the b-wave (95% CL: 41.4, 49.1), a-wave (95% CL: 47.6, 55.3), and OPs (95% CL: 49.6, 59.2). pSTR showed slower recovery immediately after the 50 mm Hg spike compared with the b-wave (P = 0.02). One week after the 50-mm Hg spike, pSTR (-30% +/- 6%, P < 0.001) and OP (-27% +/- 2%, P < 0.001) amplitudes were reduced, whereas other components were unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: The STR in mice is more sensitive to acute IOP elevation and recovers slower than other ERG components. Reduction in pSTR and OP amplitude at 1 week suggests persistent impairment of inner retinal function can occur after a single IOP spike.
PURPOSE: To examine retinal function using the full-field electroretinogram (ERG) during and after acute intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation in wild-type mice. METHODS: IOP was elevated by anterior chamber cannulation in wild-type C57/BL6 mice. The pressure-function relationship was determined by IOP elevation in steps from baseline to 80 mm Hg. The rate of functional recovery was assessed for 60 minutes after an IOP spike of 50 mm Hg for 30 minutes. During and immediately after IOP elevation, scotopic ERG signals were recorded in response to dim and bright flashes (-4.54, -2.23, and 0.34 log cd x s x m(-2)) and analyzed for photoreceptoral (a-wave), ON-bipolar (b-wave), oscillatory potentials (OPs), and scotopic threshold responses (positive [p]STR/negative [n] STR). A full ERG protocol was collected 2 days before and 7 days after the single 50-mm Hg IOP spike. RESULTS: The pSTR was most sensitive to IOP elevation with 50% amplitude loss (mu) at 41 mm Hg (mu, 95% confidence limits (CL): 37.7, 45.6) followed by nSTR at 45 mm Hg (95% CL: 41.0, 49.1). pSTR was significantly more sensitive than the b-wave (95% CL: 41.4, 49.1), a-wave (95% CL: 47.6, 55.3), and OPs (95% CL: 49.6, 59.2). pSTR showed slower recovery immediately after the 50 mm Hg spike compared with the b-wave (P = 0.02). One week after the 50-mm Hg spike, pSTR (-30% +/- 6%, P < 0.001) and OP (-27% +/- 2%, P < 0.001) amplitudes were reduced, whereas other components were unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: The STR in mice is more sensitive to acute IOP elevation and recovers slower than other ERG components. Reduction in pSTR and OP amplitude at 1 week suggests persistent impairment of inner retinal function can occur after a single IOP spike.
Authors: Marta Pazos; Hongli Yang; Stuart K Gardiner; William O Cepurna; Elaine C Johnson; John C Morrison; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Hui Chen; Yan Zhao; Mingna Liu; Liang Feng; Zhen Puyang; Ji Yi; Peiji Liang; Hao F Zhang; Jianhua Cang; John B Troy; Xiaorong Liu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Kevin C Chan; Yu Yu; Shuk Han Ng; Heather K Mak; Yolanda W Y Yip; Yolandi van der Merwe; Tianmin Ren; Jasmine S Y Yung; Sayantan Biswas; Xu Cao; Ying Chau; Christopher K S Leung Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: J G Crowston; E T Fahy; L Fry; I A Trounce; P van Wijngaarden; S Petrou; V Chrysostomou Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Jeffrey M Harder; Catherine E Braine; Pete A Williams; Xianjun Zhu; Katharine H MacNicoll; Gregory L Sousa; Rebecca A Buchanan; Richard S Smith; Richard T Libby; Gareth R Howell; Simon W M John Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Daniel A Ryskamp; Paul Witkovsky; Peter Barabas; Wei Huang; Christopher Koehler; Nikolay P Akimov; Suk Hee Lee; Shiwani Chauhan; Wei Xing; René C Rentería; Wolfgang Liedtke; David Krizaj Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Ericka Oglesby; Harry A Quigley; Donald J Zack; Frances E Cone; Matthew R Steinhart; Jing Tian; Mary E Pease; Giedrius Kalesnykas Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Manuel Salinas-Navarro; Luis Alarcón-Martínez; Francisco Javier Valiente-Soriano; Arturo Ortín-Martínez; Manuel Jiménez-López; Marcelino Avilés-Trigueros; María Paz Villegas-Pérez; Pedro de la Villa; Manuel Vidal-Sanz Journal: Mol Vis Date: 2009-12-05 Impact factor: 2.367