Damien Guindolet1,2, Emmanuel Crouzet1, Zhiguo He1, Pascal Herbepin1, Clotilde Jumelle1, Chantal Perrache1, Jean Marc Dumollard3, Fabien Forest1,3, Michel Peoc'h1,3, Philippe Gain1,4, Eric Gabison2,5,6, Gilles Thuret1,4,7. 1. Corneal Graft Biology, Engineering and Imaging Laboratory, BiiGC, EA2521, Faculty of Medicine, Jean Monnet University, Saint-Etienne, France. 2. Cornea and External Disorders Department, Rothschild Foundation Hospital, Paris, France. 3. Pathology Department, University Hospital, Saint-Etienne, France. 4. Ophthalmology Department, University Hospital, Saint-Etienne, France. 5. Ophthalmology Department, Bichat Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France. 6. Paris Diderot University, Paris, France. 7. Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France.
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify cell survival and tissue structure preservation of porcine cornea stored in a bioreactor (BR) that recreates a transcorneal pressure gradient equivalent to intraocular pressure (IOP) and renews the medium. Methods: A BR comprising endothelial and epithelial chambers was machined in a biocompatible material. The porcine cornea, securely held, separated the chambers. Medium flow and pressure inside the endothelial chamber were maintained by a peristaltic pump. In the epithelial chamber, the corneal surface was alternatively exposed to air and a specific medium. Two transparent windows allowed thickness measurement by optical coherence tomography without opening the BR. Porcine corneas stored in the BR-on (pressure 20 mm Hg, flow 5 μL/min, temperature 31°C) were compared with (1) BR-off (no pressure or flow); (2) organ culture; and (3) Petri dish with agar on the endothelial side. Epithelial and limbal structure and differentiation, corneal transparency and thickness, and endothelial viability were compared after 7 days of storage and with fresh corneas. Results: Corneas stored in the BR-on were thinner and more transparent than those stored with the other methods. The BR-on preserved a stratified and differentiated (K3/K12+) corneal epithelium and undifferentiated basal limbal cells with stemness markers (K3/K12-; ABCB5, K14, p75+), as well as endothelial integrity. Conclusions: By recreating equivalent IOP and medium renewal, the BR obtained unprecedented storage quality of porcine corneas and preserved their main epithelial, limbal, and endothelial characteristics.
Purpose: To quantify cell survival and tissue structure preservation of porcine cornea stored in a bioreactor (BR) that recreates a transcorneal pressure gradient equivalent to intraocular pressure (IOP) and renews the medium. Methods: A BR comprising endothelial and epithelial chambers was machined in a biocompatible material. The porcine cornea, securely held, separated the chambers. Medium flow and pressure inside the endothelial chamber were maintained by a peristaltic pump. In the epithelial chamber, the corneal surface was alternatively exposed to air and a specific medium. Two transparent windows allowed thickness measurement by optical coherence tomography without opening the BR. Porcine corneas stored in the BR-on (pressure 20 mm Hg, flow 5 μL/min, temperature 31°C) were compared with (1) BR-off (no pressure or flow); (2) organ culture; and (3) Petri dish with agar on the endothelial side. Epithelial and limbal structure and differentiation, corneal transparency and thickness, and endothelial viability were compared after 7 days of storage and with fresh corneas. Results: Corneas stored in the BR-on were thinner and more transparent than those stored with the other methods. The BR-on preserved a stratified and differentiated (K3/K12+) corneal epithelium and undifferentiated basal limbal cells with stemness markers (K3/K12-; ABCB5, K14, p75+), as well as endothelial integrity. Conclusions: By recreating equivalent IOP and medium renewal, the BR obtained unprecedented storage quality of porcine corneas and preserved their main epithelial, limbal, and endothelial characteristics.
Authors: Tina B McKay; Yashar Seyed-Razavi; Chiara E Ghezzi; Gabriela Dieckmann; Thomas J F Nieland; Dana M Cairns; Rachel E Pollard; Pedram Hamrah; David L Kaplan Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Islam A Khalil; Bahram Saleh; Dina M Ibrahim; Clotilde Jumelle; Ann Yung; Reza Dana; Nasim Annabi Journal: Biomater Sci Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 6.843
Authors: Clotilde Jumelle; Ehsan Shirzaei Sani; Yukako Taketani; Ann Yung; Fanny Gantin; Sunil K Chauhan; Nasim Annabi; Reza Dana Journal: Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 7.328
Authors: Tatiana Lupasco; Zhiguo He; Myriam Cassagne; Tomy Sagnial; Lise Brion; Pierre Fournié; Philippe Gain; Gilles Thuret; Michèle Allouche; François Malecaze; Michel Simon; Stéphane D Galiacy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: David Eveleth; Sarah Pizzuto; Jessica Weant; Jennifer Jenkins-Eveleth; Ralph A Bradshaw Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 2.671