Leon C Ho1, Ian P Conner2, Chi-Wai Do3, Seong-Gi Kim4, Ed X Wu5, Gadi Wollstein6, Joel S Schuman7, Kevin C Chan8. 1. NeuroImaging Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. 2. UPMC Eye Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Department of Bioengineering, Swanson School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Louis J. Fox Center for Vision Restoration, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. 3. School of Optometry, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, China. 4. NeuroImaging Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States UPMC Eye Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Department of Bioengineering, Swanson School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Center for Neuroscience Imaging Research, Institute for Basic Science, Department of Biological Science, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. 5. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China. 6. UPMC Eye Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Louis J. Fox Center for Vision Restoration, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. 7. UPMC Eye Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Department of Bioengineering, Swanson School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Louis J. Fox Center for Vision Restoration, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. 8. NeuroImaging Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States UPMC Eye Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Department of Bioengineering, Swanson School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Louis J. Fox Center for Vision Restoration, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although glaucoma treatments alter aqueous humor (AH) dynamics to lower intraocular pressure, the regulatory mechanisms of AH circulation and their contributions to the pathogenesis of ocular hypertension and glaucoma remain unclear. We hypothesized that gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (Gd-MRI) can visualize and assess AH dynamics upon sustained intraocular pressure elevation and pharmacologic interventions. METHODS: Gadolinium contrast agent was systemically administered to adult rats to mimic soluble AH components entering the anterior chamber (AC) via blood-aqueous barrier. Dynamic Gd-MRI was applied to examine the signal enhancement in AC and vitreous body upon microbead-induced ocular hypertension and unilateral topical applications of latanoprost, timolol maleate, and brimonidine tartrate to healthy eyes. RESULTS: Gadolinium signal time courses in microbead-induced hypertensive eyes possessed faster initial gadolinium uptake and higher peak signals in AC than control eyes, reflective of reduced gadolinium clearance upon microbead occlusion. Opposite trends were observed in latanoprost- and timolol-treated eyes, indicative of their respective drug actions on increased uveoscleral outflow and reduced AH production. The slowest initial gadolinium uptake but strongest peak signals were found in AC of both brimonidine-treated and untreated fellow eyes. These findings drew attention to the systemic effects of topical hypotensive drug treatment. Gadolinium leaked into the vitreous of microbead-induced hypertensive eyes and brimonidine-treated and untreated fellow eyes, suggestive of a compromise of aqueous-vitreous or blood-ocular barrier integrity. CONCLUSIONS: Gadolinium-enhanced MRI allows spatiotemporal and quantitative evaluation of altered AH dynamics and ocular tissue permeability for better understanding the physiological mechanisms of ocular hypertension and the efficacy of antiglaucoma drug treatments. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
PURPOSE: Although glaucoma treatments alter aqueous humor (AH) dynamics to lower intraocular pressure, the regulatory mechanisms of AH circulation and their contributions to the pathogenesis of ocular hypertension and glaucoma remain unclear. We hypothesized that gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (Gd-MRI) can visualize and assess AH dynamics upon sustained intraocular pressure elevation and pharmacologic interventions. METHODS:Gadolinium contrast agent was systemically administered to adult rats to mimic soluble AH components entering the anterior chamber (AC) via blood-aqueous barrier. Dynamic Gd-MRI was applied to examine the signal enhancement in AC and vitreous body upon microbead-induced ocular hypertension and unilateral topical applications of latanoprost, timolol maleate, and brimonidine tartrate to healthy eyes. RESULTS:Gadolinium signal time courses in microbead-induced hypertensive eyes possessed faster initial gadolinium uptake and higher peak signals in AC than control eyes, reflective of reduced gadolinium clearance upon microbead occlusion. Opposite trends were observed in latanoprost- and timolol-treated eyes, indicative of their respective drug actions on increased uveoscleral outflow and reduced AH production. The slowest initial gadolinium uptake but strongest peak signals were found in AC of both brimonidine-treated and untreated fellow eyes. These findings drew attention to the systemic effects of topical hypotensive drug treatment. Gadolinium leaked into the vitreous of microbead-induced hypertensive eyes and brimonidine-treated and untreated fellow eyes, suggestive of a compromise of aqueous-vitreous or blood-ocular barrier integrity. CONCLUSIONS:Gadolinium-enhanced MRI allows spatiotemporal and quantitative evaluation of altered AH dynamics and ocular tissue permeability for better understanding the physiological mechanisms of ocular hypertension and the efficacy of antiglaucoma drug treatments. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
Authors: Stephanie H Kim; Craig J Galbán; Robert J Lutz; Robert L Dedrick; Karl G Csaky; Martin J Lizak; Nam Sun Wang; Ginger Tansey; Michael R Robinson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Rebecca M Sappington; Brian J Carlson; Samuel D Crish; David J Calkins Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-10-22 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Bo Wang; Larry Kagemann; Joel S Schuman; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Richard A Bilonick; Yun Ling; Ian A Sigal; Zach Nadler; Andrew Francis; Michelle G Sandrian; Gadi Wollstein Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Leon C Ho; Bo Wang; Ian P Conner; Yolandi van der Merwe; Richard A Bilonick; Seong-Gi Kim; Ed X Wu; Ian A Sigal; Gadi Wollstein; Joel S Schuman; Kevin C Chan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Leon C Ho; Ian A Sigal; Ning-Jiun Jan; Alexander Squires; Zion Tse; Ed X Wu; Seong-Gi Kim; Joel S Schuman; Kevin C Chan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Wenyu Deng; Crystal Liu; Carlos Parra; Jeffrey R Sims; Muneeb A Faiq; Anoop Sainulabdeen; Hana Song; Kevin C Chan Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-01
Authors: Andrew P Voorhees; Leon C Ho; Ning-Jiun Jan; Huong Tran; Yolandi van der Merwe; Kevin Chan; Ian A Sigal Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Hoi-Lam Li; Sze Wan Shan; W Daniel Stamer; King-Kit Li; Henry Ho-Lung Chan; Mortimer M Civan; Chi-Ho To; Thomas Chuen Lam; Chi-Wai Do Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 6.208