Akshay Gurdita1, Bingyao Tan2, Karen M Joos3, Kostadinka Bizheva1,2, Vivian Choh4. 1. School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. 2. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. 3. Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. 4. School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. vchoh@uwaterloo.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the electrophysiological and morphological responses to acute, moderately elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in Sprague-Dawley (SD), Long-Evans (LE) and Brown Norway (BN) rat eyes. METHODS: Eleven-week-old SD (n = 5), LE (n = 5) and BN (n = 5) rats were used. Scotopic threshold responses (STRs), Maxwellian flash electroretinograms (ERGs) or ultrahigh-resolution optical coherence tomography (UHR-OCT) images of the rat retinas were collected from both eyes before, during and after IOP elevation of one eye. IOP was raised to ~35 mmHg for 1 h using a vascular loop, while the other eye served as a control. STRs, ERGs and UHR-OCT images were acquired on 3 days separated by 1 day of no experimental manipulation. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between species in baseline electroretinography. However, during IOP elevation, peak positive STR amplitudes in LE (mean ± standard deviation 259 ± 124 µV) and BN (228 ± 96 µV) rats were about fourfold higher than those in SD rats (56 ± 46 µV) rats (p = 0.0002 for both). Similarly, during elevated IOP, ERG b-wave amplitudes were twofold higher in LE and BN rats compared to those of SD rats (947 ± 129 µV and 892 ± 184 µV, vs 427 ± 138 µV; p = 0.0002 for both). UHR-OCT images showed backward bowing in all groups during IOP elevation, with a return to typical form about 30 min after IOP elevation. CONCLUSION: Differences in the loop-induced responses between the strains are likely due to different inherent retinal morphology and physiology.
PURPOSE: To compare the electrophysiological and morphological responses to acute, moderately elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in Sprague-Dawley (SD), Long-Evans (LE) and Brown Norway (BN) rat eyes. METHODS: Eleven-week-old SD (n = 5), LE (n = 5) and BN (n = 5) rats were used. Scotopic threshold responses (STRs), Maxwellian flash electroretinograms (ERGs) or ultrahigh-resolution optical coherence tomography (UHR-OCT) images of the rat retinas were collected from both eyes before, during and after IOP elevation of one eye. IOP was raised to ~35 mmHg for 1 h using a vascular loop, while the other eye served as a control. STRs, ERGs and UHR-OCT images were acquired on 3 days separated by 1 day of no experimental manipulation. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between species in baseline electroretinography. However, during IOP elevation, peak positive STR amplitudes in LE (mean ± standard deviation 259 ± 124 µV) and BN (228 ± 96 µV) rats were about fourfold higher than those in SD rats (56 ± 46 µV) rats (p = 0.0002 for both). Similarly, during elevated IOP, ERG b-wave amplitudes were twofold higher in LE and BN rats compared to those of SD rats (947 ± 129 µV and 892 ± 184 µV, vs 427 ± 138 µV; p = 0.0002 for both). UHR-OCT images showed backward bowing in all groups during IOP elevation, with a return to typical form about 30 min after IOP elevation. CONCLUSION: Differences in the loop-induced responses between the strains are likely due to different inherent retinal morphology and physiology.
Authors: T W Mittag; J Danias; G Pohorenec; H M Yuan; E Burakgazi; R Chalmers-Redman; S M Podos; W G Tatton Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Brad Fortune; Hongli Yang; Nicholas G Strouthidis; Grant A Cull; Jonathan L Grimm; J Crawford Downs; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Marco Augustin; Stanislava Fialová; Corinna Fischak; Leopold Schmetterer; Christoph K Hitzenberger; Bernhard Baumann Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Michal Fiedorowicz; Tomasz Choragiewicz; Sebastian Thaler; Frank Schuettauf; Dominika Nowakowska; Kamila Wojtunik; Michele Reibaldi; Teresio Avitabile; Tomasz Kocki; Waldemar A Turski; Agnieszka Kaminska; Pawel Grieb; Eberhart Zrenner; Robert Rejdak; Mario Damiano Toro Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Rafael Lani; Mariana S Dias; Carla Andreia Abreu; Victor G Araújo; Thais Gonçalo; Gabriel Nascimento-Dos-Santos; Adalmir Morterá Dantas; Silvana Allodi; Mario Fiorani; Hilda Petrs-Silva; Rafael Linden Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 4.379