PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and to identify sources of experimental variability of quantitative and qualitative fundus autofluorescence (AF) assessment in mice. METHODS: Blue (488 nm) and near-infrared (790 nm) fundus AF imaging was performed in various mouse strains and disease models (129S2, C57Bl/6, Abca4(-/-), C3H-Pde6b(rd1/rd1), Rho(-/-), and BALB/c mice) using a commercially available scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Gray-level analysis was used to explore factors influencing fundus AF measurements. RESULTS: A contact lens avoided cataract development and resulted in consistent fundus AF recordings. Fundus illumination and magnification were sensitive to changes of the camera position. Standardized adjustment of the recorded confocal plane and consideration of the pupil area allowed reproducible recording of fundus AF from the retinal pigment epithelium with an intersession coefficient of repeatability of ±22%. Photopigment bleaching occurred during the first 1.5 seconds of exposure to 488 nm blue light (∼10 mW/cm(2)), resulting in an increase of fundus AF. In addition, there was a slight decrease in fundus AF during prolonged blue light exposure. Fundus AF at 488 nm was low in animals with an absence of a normal visual cycle, and high in BALB/c and Abca4(-/-) mice. Degenerative alterations in Pde6b(rd1/rd1) and Rho(-/-) were reminiscent of findings in human retinal disease. CONCLUSIONS: Investigation of retinal phenotypes in mice is possible in vivo using standardized fundus AF imaging. Correlation with postmortem analysis is likely to lead to further understanding of human disease phenotypes and of retinal degenerations in general. Fundus AF imaging may be useful as an outcome measure in preclinical trials, such as for monitoring effects aimed at lowering lipofuscin accumulation in the retinal pigment epithelium.
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and to identify sources of experimental variability of quantitative and qualitative fundus autofluorescence (AF) assessment in mice. METHODS: Blue (488 nm) and near-infrared (790 nm) fundus AF imaging was performed in various mouse strains and disease models (129S2, C57Bl/6, Abca4(-/-), C3H-Pde6b(rd1/rd1), Rho(-/-), and BALB/c mice) using a commercially available scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Gray-level analysis was used to explore factors influencing fundus AF measurements. RESULTS: A contact lens avoided cataract development and resulted in consistent fundus AF recordings. Fundus illumination and magnification were sensitive to changes of the camera position. Standardized adjustment of the recorded confocal plane and consideration of the pupil area allowed reproducible recording of fundus AF from the retinal pigment epithelium with an intersession coefficient of repeatability of ±22%. Photopigment bleaching occurred during the first 1.5 seconds of exposure to 488 nm blue light (∼10 mW/cm(2)), resulting in an increase of fundus AF. In addition, there was a slight decrease in fundus AF during prolonged blue light exposure. Fundus AF at 488 nm was low in animals with an absence of a normal visual cycle, and high in BALB/c and Abca4(-/-) mice. Degenerative alterations in Pde6b(rd1/rd1) and Rho(-/-) were reminiscent of findings in humanretinal disease. CONCLUSIONS: Investigation of retinal phenotypes in mice is possible in vivo using standardized fundus AF imaging. Correlation with postmortem analysis is likely to lead to further understanding of human disease phenotypes and of retinal degenerations in general. Fundus AF imaging may be useful as an outcome measure in preclinical trials, such as for monitoring effects aimed at lowering lipofuscin accumulation in the retinal pigment epithelium.
Authors: François Delori; Jonathan P Greenberg; Russell L Woods; Jörg Fischer; Tobias Duncker; Janet Sparrow; R Theodore Smith Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Michelle L Gabriele; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Joel S Schuman; Richard A Bilonick; Jongsick Kim; Larry Kagemann; Gadi Wollstein Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: M M Humphries; D Rancourt; G J Farrar; P Kenna; M Hazel; R A Bush; P A Sieving; D M Sheils; N McNally; P Creighton; A Erven; A Boros; K Gulya; M R Capecchi; P Humphries Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Panagiotis I Sergouniotis; Elliott H Sohn; Zheng Li; Vikki A McBain; Genevieve A Wright; Anthony T Moore; Anthony G Robson; Graham E Holder; Andrew R Webster Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Artur V Cideciyan; Malgorzata Swider; Tomas S Aleman; Marisa I Roman; Alexander Sumaroka; Sharon B Schwartz; Edwin M Stone; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Janet R Sparrow; Anna Blonska; Erin Flynn; Tobias Duncker; Jonathan P Greenberg; Roberta Secondi; Keiko Ueda; François C Delori Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Brent A Bell; Alex Yuan; Rose M Dicicco; Joseph Fogerty; Emma M Lessieur; Brian D Perkins Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Peter Charbel Issa; Alun R Barnard; Mandeep S Singh; Emma Carter; Zhichun Jiang; Roxana A Radu; Ulrich Schraermeyer; Robert E MacLaren Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Michelle E McClements; Alun R Barnard; Mandeep S Singh; Peter Charbel Issa; Zhichun Jiang; Roxana A Radu; Robert E MacLaren Journal: Hum Gene Ther Date: 2018-12-24 Impact factor: 5.695