Alan B Saul1,2, Xuezhi Cui3,4, Shanu Markand5, Sylvia B Smith3,4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, 30912, USA. asaul@augusta.edu. 2. James and Jean Culver Vision Discovery Institute, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA. asaul@augusta.edu. 3. Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA. 4. James and Jean Culver Vision Discovery Institute, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous work has suggested that the retinal degeneration mutant rd8 mouse lacks an electroretinographic (ERG) phenotype until about 9 months of age. We evaluated the ERG phenotype of these mice by measuring both conventional ERG responses and scotopic threshold responses. METHODS: Groups of 4-month-old wild-type (WT) and mutant (rd8) mice were anesthetized and tested for mass retinal responses (ERGs) to several types of visual stimuli. Scotopic threshold responses were accumulated with brief scotopic flashes at a series of very dim intensities. Dark-adapted (scotopic) and light-adapted (photopic) responses to brief flashes at a series of higher intensities were recorded, along with long flashes and random modulations of light levels under photopic conditions. RESULTS: Negative scotopic threshold responses (nSTRs) had lower amplitudes in rd8 mice compared to WTs. Positive scotopic threshold responses were similar in the two groups. With the more intense stimuli, a- and c-wave amplitudes were smaller in rd8 mice. Both scotopic and photopic b-wave amplitudes tended to be larger in rd8 mice, though generally not significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The striking decrease in nSTR amplitudes was surprising, given that the main retinal effects of the rd8 mutation occur in the outer retina, at the external limiting membrane. The primary source of nSTRs in mice is thought to be at the amacrine cell level in the inner retina. Investigation of how this mutation leads to inner retinal dysfunction might reveal unexpected aspects of retinal cell biology and circuitry.
PURPOSE: Previous work has suggested that the retinal degeneration mutant rd8 mouse lacks an electroretinographic (ERG) phenotype until about 9 months of age. We evaluated the ERG phenotype of these mice by measuring both conventional ERG responses and scotopic threshold responses. METHODS: Groups of 4-month-old wild-type (WT) and mutant (rd8) mice were anesthetized and tested for mass retinal responses (ERGs) to several types of visual stimuli. Scotopic threshold responses were accumulated with brief scotopic flashes at a series of very dim intensities. Dark-adapted (scotopic) and light-adapted (photopic) responses to brief flashes at a series of higher intensities were recorded, along with long flashes and random modulations of light levels under photopic conditions. RESULTS: Negative scotopic threshold responses (nSTRs) had lower amplitudes in rd8 mice compared to WTs. Positive scotopic threshold responses were similar in the two groups. With the more intense stimuli, a- and c-wave amplitudes were smaller in rd8 mice. Both scotopic and photopic b-wave amplitudes tended to be larger in rd8 mice, though generally not significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The striking decrease in nSTR amplitudes was surprising, given that the main retinal effects of the rd8 mutation occur in the outer retina, at the external limiting membrane. The primary source of nSTRs in mice is thought to be at the amacrine cell level in the inner retina. Investigation of how this mutation leads to inner retinal dysfunction might reveal unexpected aspects of retinal cell biology and circuitry.
Authors: Samuel G Jacobson; Artur V Cideciyan; Tomas S Aleman; Michael J Pianta; Alexander Sumaroka; Sharon B Schwartz; Elaine E Smilko; Ann H Milam; Val C Sheffield; Edwin M Stone Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr; Mark E Pennesi; Shannon M Saszik; Andrew J Barrow; Janis Lem; Debra E Bramblett; David L Paul; Laura J Frishman; Samuel M Wu Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Ala Moshiri; Ernesto Gonzalez; Kunifumi Tagawa; Hidetaka Maeda; Minhua Wang; Laura J Frishman; Steven W Wang Journal: Dev Biol Date: 2008-01-26 Impact factor: 3.582
Authors: Ulrich F O Luhmann; Livia S Carvalho; Sophia-Martha Kleine Holthaus; Jill A Cowing; Simon Greenaway; Colin J Chu; Philipp Herrmann; Alexander J Smith; Peter M G Munro; Paul Potter; James W B Bainbridge; Robin R Ali Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 6.150