Sara M Thomasy1,2, J Seth Eaton1,2, Matthew J Timberlake3, Paul E Miller2,4, Steven Matsumoto5, Christopher J Murphy1,2,6. 1. 1 Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California , Davis, Davis, California. 2. 2 Ocular Services on Demand (OSOD) , Madison, Wisconsin. 3. 3 Sacramento, California. 4. 4 Department of Surgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin , Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 5. 5 Department of Nonclinical and Translational Sciences, Allergan , Irvine, California. 6. 6 Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, School of Medicine, University of California , Davis, Davis, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the impact of anterior segment geometry on ocular scoring systems quantifying anterior chamber (AC) cells in humans and 7 common laboratory species. METHODS: Using normative anterior segment dimensions and novel geometric formulae, ocular section volumes measured by 3 scoring systems; Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN), Ocular Services On Demand (OSOD), and OSOD-modified SUN were calculated for each species, respectively. Calculated volumes were applied to each system's AC cell scoring scheme to determine comparative cell density (cells/mm(3)). Cell density values for all laboratory species were normalized to human values and conversion factors derived to create modified scoring schemes, facilitating interspecies comparison with each system, respectively. RESULTS: Differences in anterior segment geometry resulted in marked differences in optical section volume measured. Volumes were smaller in rodents than dogs and cats, but represented a comparatively larger percentage of AC volume. AC cell density (cells/mm(3)) varied between species. Using the SUN and OSOD-modified SUN systems, values in the pig, dog, and cat underestimated human values; values in rodents overestimated human values. Modified normalized scoring systems presented here account for species-related anterior segment geometry and facilitate both intra- and interspecies analysis, as well as translational comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Employment of modified AC cell scoring systems that account for species-specific differences in anterior segment anatomy would harmonize findings across species and may be more predictive for determining ocular toxicological consequences in ocular drug and device development programs.
PURPOSE: To determine the impact of anterior segment geometry on ocular scoring systems quantifying anterior chamber (AC) cells in humans and 7 common laboratory species. METHODS: Using normative anterior segment dimensions and novel geometric formulae, ocular section volumes measured by 3 scoring systems; Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN), Ocular Services On Demand (OSOD), and OSOD-modified SUN were calculated for each species, respectively. Calculated volumes were applied to each system's AC cell scoring scheme to determine comparative cell density (cells/mm(3)). Cell density values for all laboratory species were normalized to human values and conversion factors derived to create modified scoring schemes, facilitating interspecies comparison with each system, respectively. RESULTS: Differences in anterior segment geometry resulted in marked differences in optical section volume measured. Volumes were smaller in rodents than dogs and cats, but represented a comparatively larger percentage of AC volume. AC cell density (cells/mm(3)) varied between species. Using the SUN and OSOD-modified SUN systems, values in the pig, dog, and cat underestimated human values; values in rodents overestimated human values. Modified normalized scoring systems presented here account for species-related anterior segment geometry and facilitate both intra- and interspecies analysis, as well as translational comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Employment of modified AC cell scoring systems that account for species-specific differences in anterior segment anatomy would harmonize findings across species and may be more predictive for determining ocular toxicological consequences in ocular drug and device development programs.
Authors: Kayla R Ficarrotta; Simon A Bello; Youssef H Mohamed; Christopher L Passaglia Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Sangwan Park; Brian C Leonard; Vijay Krishna Raghunathan; Soohyun Kim; Jennifer Y Li; Mark J Mannis; Christopher J Murphy; Sara M Thomasy Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-08