OBJECTIVE: To characterize functional and anatomic sequelae of a bleb induced by subretinal injection. METHODS: Subretinal injections (100 μL) of balanced salt solution were placed in the superotemporal macula of 1 eye in 3 cynomolgus macaques. Fellow eyes received intravitreal injections (100 μL) of balanced salt solution. Fundus photography, ocular coherence tomography, and multifocal electroretinography were performed before and immediately after injection and again at intervals up to 3 months postinjection. Histopathologic analyses included transmission electron microscopy and immunohistochemistry for glial fibrillary acidic protein, rhodopsin, M/L-cone opsin, and S-cone opsin. RESULTS: Retinas were reattached by 2 days postinjection (seen by ocular coherence tomography). Multifocal electroretinography waveforms were suppressed post-subretinal injection within the subretinal injection bleb and, surprisingly, also in regions far peripheral to this area. Multifocal electroretinography amplitudes were nearly completely recovered by 90 days. The spectral-domain ocular coherence tomography inner segment-outer segment line had decreased reflectivity at 92 days. Glial fibrillary acidic protein and S-cone opsin staining were unaffected. Rhodopsin and M/L-cone opsins were partially displaced into the inner segments. Transmission electron microscopy revealed disorganization of the outer segment rod (but not cone) discs. At all postinjection intervals, eyes with intravitreal injection were similar to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Subretinal injection is a promising route for drug delivery to the eye. Three months post-subretinal injection, retinal function was nearly recovered, although reorganization of the outer segment rod disc remained disrupted. Understanding the functional and anatomic effects of subretinal injection is important for interpretation of the effects of compounds delivered to the subretinal space. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Subretinal injection is a new potential route for drug delivery to the eye. Separating drug effects from the procedural effects is critical.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize functional and anatomic sequelae of a bleb induced by subretinal injection. METHODS: Subretinal injections (100 μL) of balanced salt solution were placed in the superotemporal macula of 1 eye in 3 cynomolgus macaques. Fellow eyes received intravitreal injections (100 μL) of balanced salt solution. Fundus photography, ocular coherence tomography, and multifocal electroretinography were performed before and immediately after injection and again at intervals up to 3 months postinjection. Histopathologic analyses included transmission electron microscopy and immunohistochemistry for glial fibrillary acidic protein, rhodopsin, M/L-cone opsin, and S-cone opsin. RESULTS: Retinas were reattached by 2 days postinjection (seen by ocular coherence tomography). Multifocal electroretinography waveforms were suppressed post-subretinal injection within the subretinal injection bleb and, surprisingly, also in regions far peripheral to this area. Multifocal electroretinography amplitudes were nearly completely recovered by 90 days. The spectral-domain ocular coherence tomography inner segment-outer segment line had decreased reflectivity at 92 days. Glial fibrillary acidic protein and S-cone opsin staining were unaffected. Rhodopsin and M/L-cone opsins were partially displaced into the inner segments. Transmission electron microscopy revealed disorganization of the outer segment rod (but not cone) discs. At all postinjection intervals, eyes with intravitreal injection were similar to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Subretinal injection is a promising route for drug delivery to the eye. Three months post-subretinal injection, retinal function was nearly recovered, although reorganization of the outer segment rod disc remained disrupted. Understanding the functional and anatomic effects of subretinal injection is important for interpretation of the effects of compounds delivered to the subretinal space. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Subretinal injection is a new potential route for drug delivery to the eye. Separating drug effects from the procedural effects is critical.
Authors: Geoffrey P Lewis; David G Charteris; Charanjit S Sethi; William P Leitner; Kenneth A Linberg; Steven K Fisher Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jocelyn Holash; Sam Davis; Nick Papadopoulos; Susan D Croll; Lillian Ho; Michelle Russell; Patricia Boland; Ray Leidich; Donna Hylton; Elena Burova; Ella Ioffe; Tammy Huang; Czeslaw Radziejewski; Kevin Bailey; James P Fandl; Tom Daly; Stanley J Wiegand; George D Yancopoulos; John S Rudge Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-08-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Shaomei Wang; Sergej Girman; Bin Lu; Nicholas Bischoff; Toby Holmes; Rebecca Shearer; Lynda S Wright; Clive N Svendsen; David M Gamm; Raymond D Lund Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: James W B Bainbridge; Alexander J Smith; Susie S Barker; Scott Robbie; Robert Henderson; Kamaljit Balaggan; Ananth Viswanathan; Graham E Holder; Andrew Stockman; Nick Tyler; Simon Petersen-Jones; Shomi S Bhattacharya; Adrian J Thrasher; Fred W Fitzke; Barrie J Carter; Gary S Rubin; Anthony T Moore; Robin R Ali Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-04-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A M Komáromy; J J Alexander; A E Cooper; V A Chiodo; L G Glushakova; G M Acland; W W Hauswirth; G D Aguirre Journal: Gene Ther Date: 2008-03-13 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Maria Voss Kyhn; Jens F Kiilgaard; Ana Garcia Lopez; Erik Scherfig; Jan U Prause; Morten la Cour Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Kristina Narfström; Martin L Katz; Ragnheidur Bragadottir; Mathias Seeliger; Ana Boulanger; T Michael Redmond; Lynette Caro; Chooi-May Lai; P Elizabeth Rakoczy Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Sachin Parikh; Andrew Le; Julian Davenport; Michael B Gorin; Steven Nusinowitz; Anna Matynia Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: R F Boyd; D G Sledge; S L Boye; S E Boye; W W Hauswirth; A M Komáromy; S M Petersen-Jones; J T Bartoe Journal: Gene Ther Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Ryan J Dashek; Charlene B Y Kim; Carol A Rasmussen; Elizabeth A Hennes-Beean; James N Ver Hoeve; T Michael Nork Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Felix F Reichel; Daniyar L Dauletbekov; Reinhild Klein; Tobias Peters; G Alex Ochakovski; Immanuel P Seitz; Barbara Wilhelm; Marius Ueffing; Martin Biel; Bernd Wissinger; Stylianos Michalakis; Karl Ulrich Bartz-Schmidt; M Dominik Fischer Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Guo-jie Ye; Ewa Budzynski; Peter Sonnentag; T Michael Nork; Paul E Miller; Alok K Sharma; James N Ver Hoeve; Leia M Smith; Tara Arndt; Roberto Calcedo; Chantelle Gaskin; Paulette M Robinson; David R Knop; William W Hauswirth; Jeffrey D Chulay Journal: Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 5.032
Authors: S Tammy Hsu; Hesham Gabr; Christian Viehland; Karim Sleiman; Hoan T Ngo; Oscar M Carrasco-Zevallos; Lejla Vajzovic; Ryan P McNabb; Sandra S Stinnett; Joseph A Izatt; Anthony N Kuo; Cynthia A Toth Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 3.283