Niloufar Shayan Asl1, Farhad Nejat2, Parvaneh Mohammadi1, Abdolhossein Nekoukar3, Saeed Hesam4, Marzieh Ebrahimi5, Khosrow Jadidi6. 1. Department of Stem Cells and Developmental Biology, Cell Science Research Centre, Royan Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Technology, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 2. Vision Health Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran. 3. Animal Core Facility, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Centre, Royan Institute for Biotechnology, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Reproductive Health, Reproductive Epidemiology Research Centre, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 5. Department of Stem Cells and Developmental Biology, Cell Science Research Centre, Royan Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Technology, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. Electronic Address: Mebrahimi@royaninstitute.org. 6. Vision Health Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran. Electronic Address: kh.jadidi@gmail.com.
For the past 75 years, human amniotic membrane (HAM)
has been used in ocular surgery and as a supporter for limbal
stem cell (LSC) expansion (1). The anti-inflammatory,
anti-scarring, anti-microbial, anti-angiogenic, antifibrotic
effects, and low immunogenicity of HAM (1,
2) make it suitable for surgical applications without
necessitating the use for systemic immunosuppressive
drugs. HAMs produce growth factors that can promote
re-epithelialization of the cornea, including epidermal
growth factor (EGF), keratinocyte growth factor (KGF),
vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), basic
fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), and platelet-derived
growth factor (PDGF) (2, 3). The presence of structural
proteins such as collagen (I, III, VI, and VII), laminin,
fibronectin, lumican, and osteoglycin can help to explain
the observed epitheliotrophic effects of HAM (2-4). Thus,
the specific structure of HAM leads to the promotion of reepithelialization
and other aspects of the corneal healing
process. In particular, HAM induces LSC migration,
inhibits apoptosis, and maintains epithelial progenitor
cells within the LSC niche (5, 6).Advances in stem cell research that include the
development of laboratory techniques for isolation and
maintenance of LSCs and improvements in surgical
techniques have opened a new chapter for the application
of bioengineered grafts by enabling ex vivo LSC
expansion. HAM (either intact or denuded) was the
first tissue used as a carrier for ex vivo LSC expansion
(7, 8). However, the potential disadvantages of amniotic
membrane transplantation include donor variation (9),
increased risk of viral infections due to the use of fresh
tissue, difficulties in HAM manipulation, increased
surgery time, and increased risk of complications such as
granuloma formation, giant papillary conjunctivitis, and
patient discomfort (10).In recent years, several studies have researched the
use of homogenates or extracts of amniotic membrane
for the treatment of ocular surface disease. These studies
showed that the extracts were able to reduce inflammation
and cause the epithelium to develop a more regular and
compact appearance; further, all of the patients reported
an improvement in symptoms at 15-20 days after
treatment. Thus, amniotic membrane extracts appear to
be effective for the treatment of certain ocular disorders
without necessary to surgical skill (11-13).However, no research has been conducted to evaluate
the effect of HAM extracts on LSC proliferation
and differentiation ex vivo. Questions about whether
amniotic membrane extract can be used as a standardized
supplement for LSC culture ex vivo (as part of cellular
therapy) and whether it can be used as an in vivo treatment
remain unresolved. Thus, the aim of this study is to prepare
standardized HAM-derived eye drops and determine
whether amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED)
can be an effective supplement for LSC expansion ex vivo
and promote healing of corneal damage in a rabbit model.
Materials and Methods
In this interventional experimental study, we used
AMEED as a supplement for expansion of LSCs in vitro
and promote corneal healing in a rabbit model.
Preparation of amniotic membrane extract
Cryopreserved HAMs were obtained from the Amniotic
Membrane Bank of Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran, that
had Ethical approval for HAMs banking (EC/92/10/72).
Healthy donors selected based on medical history
questionnaires eached signed an informed consent for
study participation. All HAMs were negative for human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV I and II), hepatitis B
virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human T-cell
lymphotropic virus (HTLV I and II), cytomegalovirus
(CMV), and bacterial infections.The HAMs were washed with Mg2+-and Ca2+-free
phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH=7.2, L182-01,
BioScience, UK) that contained 1000 U/ml penicillin
and 50 µg/ml streptomycin (pen/strep, 15070-063, Gibco
Life Technologies, USA). Next, the HAMs were cut
into small pieces and submerged in liquid nitrogen. The
frozen tissues were manually ground into a fine powder,
weighed, mixed with distilled water at a 1:1 (w/v) ratio,
and homogenized by a sonicator (UP200S, Hielscher
Ultrasonics GmbH, Teltow, Germany) on a 20% duty
cycle for 10 minutes. The homogenate was centrifuged
at 4000 g at 4°C for 10 minutes and at 15000 g at 4°C
for 5 minutes to remove the cell debris. The supernatant
was collected and filtered using a 0.2-µm filter, and we
measured the total protein content as explained below. The
final product, AMEED, was aliquoted at a concentration
of 1 mg/ml to a final volume of 5 mL and stored at -70°C.
For long-term storage, several samples were lyophilized
(Christ Alpha 1-2 LDplus, Germany) to maintain the
bioactivity of the proteins (including the growth factors).
Measurement of total protein and growth factor
concentrations
The total protein in each batch of AMEED was assessed
using a standard Bradford protein assay. Briefly, 20 µl of
each sample and a diluted standard that contained 10 µg/
µl .-globulin were added to the wells of a 96-well plate
(in duplicate), followed by the addition of 500 µl Bradford
buffer (5000006, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules,
CA, USA) to each well and mixed. The optical density
at 595 nm was then measured using a spectrophotometer
(Multiskan Spectrum, Thermo Fisher Scientific Oy,
Vantaa, Finland).The concentrations of EGF, KGF, hepatocyte growth
factor (HGF), and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL1RA),
as important amniotic membrane proteins necessary
for epithelial regeneration (14), were assessed using
commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay (ELISA) kits (Catalogue no.: DEG00, DKG00,
DHG00, and DRA00B, R & D Systems Inc., Minneapolis,
MN, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocols.
Four batches of AMEED were used for this growth factor
analysis. The stability of the growth factors was tested
after one month to one year of storage at -70°C, after 7
days of storage in a refrigerator (2-8°C), and after 2 days
of storage at room temperature.
Limbal stem cell explant culture
We obtained normal human eye globes from the Central
EyeBank of the Islamic Republic of Iran following approval
by Royan institutional review board (EC90/1039). The
LSCs were cultured based on our previously published
method (8, 15). Briefly, the fresh limbal region was
removed, washed, and treated with Dispase II (1.2 U/ml
in Mg2+-free and Ca2+-free Hanks’ balanced salt solution;
17105-041, Gibco, Auckland, NZ) at 37°C for 5-10
minutes, after which we carefully removed the stromal
layer. The tissue was then rinsed with Dulbecco’s Modified
Eagle’s Medium Nutrient Mixture F-12 (DMEM/F12,
1760148, Gibco Life Technologies, USA) that contained
10% foetal bovine serum (FBS, Gibco Life Technologies,
USA), cut into small cubes of approximately 1-2 mm in
length, and cultured on a six-well plate (one cube was
used per well). The explants were cultured in limbal
medium (LM) comprised of DMEM/F-12 supplemented
with 0.5% dimethyl sulfoxide, (DMSO, Sigma,
Steinheim, Germany), 2 ng/ml human EGF (Sigma,
Germany), 5 µg/ml insulin (Sigma, Germany), 5 µg/ml
transferrin (Sigma, Germany), 5 ng/ml selenium (Sigma,
Germany), 0.5 µg/ml hydrocortisone (Sigma, Germany),
50 µg/ml gentamicin (Sigma, Germany), and 1.25 µg/ml
amphotericin B (Sigma, Germany). AMEED were added
to LM at final concentrations of 0.1 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg/
ml. Explants cultured in serum-free LM were used as the
negative control and LM supplemented with 10% FBS
was the positive control. The cultures were incubated
in a humidified incubator in 5% CO2 for 14 days, and
the medium was replaced every 2 days. The extent of
each outgrowth was monitored using an inverted phase-
contrast microscope and photographed. The diameter of
ImageJ (version 1.50b, National Institute of Health, MD,
USA) where the pixel to area conversion was set using the
scale bar. To calculate the percentage of outgrowth, the
diameter of area covered by LSCs divided on diameter of
plate and then multiplied by 100.
Limbal stem cell proliferation and cytotoxicity assay
We evaluated the proliferation rate of LSCs by
dissociating the cells from 7-day explant cultures. Then,
5×103 single cells were seeded in 96-well plates and
cultured in the presence or absence of AMEED for 5
days. The final concentrations of AMEED in LM media
were 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg/ml. Serum-free LM was
the negative control and LM supplemented with 10% FBS
was the positive control. At the end of the culture time,
the cells were manually counted and we calculated the
growth rate by dividing the number of the cells at test
group on cell number at negative control.In order to evaluate the cell cytotoxicity of AMEED,
single LSCs were treated for 24 hours in the presence/
absence of AMEED and then subjected to assay with
3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium(MTT, Sigma, Germany) in accordance with the
manufacturer’s protocol.
Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction
Total cellular RNA was extracted from LSCs in the
AMEED and control groups at day14 of the explantculture. We carried out cDNA synthesis using a
RevertAid H Minus First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit(Fermentas Life Sciences, USA) in accordance with
the manufacturer’s protocol. The cDNA was then
amplified using quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-
PCR) in the presence of primers specific to the ATP-
binding cassette sub-family G member 2 (ABCG2)
and P63 (putative stem cell markers), cytokeratin
3 (K3, corneal epithelial marker), and K19 and K12
(corneal-conjunctival epithelial cell markers) as listed
in Table 1. Relative quantification of mRNA using
the comparative cycle threshold (Ct) method was
performed with a StepOnePlus Real-Time PCR System
(Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). The
data were analysed by the 2-ΔΔCt method to calculate
the fold change in gene expression and normalized
to the expression level of an endogenous reference
gene, glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase
(GAPDH).
Rabbit model of corneal defect and treatment
We randomly divided 10 healthy adult male rabbits that
weighed 1.5-2.0 kg into two groups. The procedures were
performed under general anaesthesia by intramuscular
administration of ketamine (35 mg/kg of body weight)
and xylazine (5 mg/kg of body weight). Systemic or local
immunosuppressive agents were not used in this study.
A surgeon used an 8-mm diameter ring to mechanically
remove the corneal epithelium from each of the rabbit’s
eyes (16). According to our in vitro results, 0.1-1 mg/ml
of AMEED were effective doses for expansion of LSCs.
Therefore, we selected the 1 mg/ml dose of AMEED for
animal treatment due to the flow of tears in the eye. A total
of 5 rabbits were treated with one drop of AMEED (1 mg/
ml) in their right eyes every 2 hours. The other 5 rabbits
were treated with one drop in their right eyes every 6
hours. The antibiotic chloramphenicol was administered
every 6 hours in both eyes. The left eyes (control group)
only received chloramphenicol to avoid any bacterial
infection. All the animals were assessed daily for 6 days
by using a slit-lamp microscope to monitor the wound
healing process.Oligonucleotide primers used for real-time polymerase chain reaction
Outcome measurements
Subjective symptoms that included eyelid oedema,
chemosis, conjunctival injection, and conjunctival
infiltration were assessed using a 0-3 scale for
symptoms, as follows: 0 (no), 1 (mild), 2 (moderate),
and 3 (severe). Fluorescein staining was used to
evaluate the corneal epithelial defect (CED) site. The
diameter of each defect was observed by a slit-lamp
microscope and measured in millimetres by image
analysis software.
Histopathologic evaluation
We randomly selected rabbits from the AMEED
and control groups for histopathologic evaluation of
the healing cornea. Briefly, randomly selected rabbits
were euthanized by anaesthetic drugs at 2 weeks
(n=2), one month (n=2), and 3 months (n=1) after
treatment. The rabbit’s eyes were enucleated, fixed
in 10% formaldehyde, embedded in paraffin, cut into
5-µm sections, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin
(H&E).
Statistical analysis
Means and standard deviations were calculated based
on at least three biological experiments. Statistical
analyses of the quantitative variables with normal
distribution were carried out using one-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA). For multiple comparisons, we
used Tukey’s test. A mixed-model analysis was used
to compare the variables between time points. P<0.05
was considered to indicate statistical significance.
All of the statistical analyses were performed using
SPSS 17.0 statistics software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL,
USA).
We added different concentrations of AMEED to
the LSC culture medium to understand the effect of
AMEED on LSC growth. The epithelial sheets grown
from the limbal explants in the AMEED and positive
control groups had regular margins (Fig .1A). Most
cells were small and circular, with a high nucleus-tocytoplasm
ratio during the 14-day culture period. In the
negative control group, the outgrowth had an irregular
margin, and most of the cells were differentiated
epithelial cells that had a large cytoplasm and small
nucleus.
Fig.1
Limbal cell growth with amniotic membrane extract eye drop (AMEED) exposure and gene expression chart. A. Limbal explants grown in limbal
medium (LM) supplemented with 0.1 and 1 mg/ml of AMEED as the test groups, 10% foetal bovine serum (FBS) as the positive control, and serum-free LM
as the negative control (scale bar: 200 µm), B. The diameter of the area covered by limbal stem cells (LSCs) divided on the diameter of the culture area of
the plate, then multiplied by 100, C. LSCs were dissociated from explant cultures, re-seeded, and incubated with AMEED to evaluate the growth rate in each
group, D. Cell cytotoxicity assessed 24 hours post-treatment by AMEED on dissociated cells from an explant culture using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5diphenyltetrazolium
(MTT), and E. Expression of ATP-binding cassette sub-family G member 2 (ABCG2, stemness related marker), K3, K12 (corneal related
marker), and K19 (conjunctival/corneal differentiation marker) were evaluated in 14-day explant cultured cells by quantitative real-time polymerase chain
reaction (qRT-PCR). Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) was the internal control and data was normalized by the negative control. Each
bar represents the mean ± SD of at least three different experiments.
*; P=0.01 and **; P=0.001.
The percentage of outgrowth was greater for the
cells treated with AMEED at 1 mg/ml (P<0.01,
Fig .1B). Compared to the negative control group, we
observed a higher rate of epithelial growth for the cells
treated with 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 mg/ml AMEED (P=0.01,
Fig .1C). However, compared to the positive control
group, there were no differences in cells treated with
0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 mg/ml AMEED (P>0.05, Fig .1C).
Interestingly, AMEED at high concentrations (=2 mg/
ml) significantly decreased LSC growth (P<0.001,
Fig .1C), which might have been due to cytotoxicity
(Fig .1D).
We investigated whether AMEED increased the
number of LSCs or differentiated cells by assessing the
expression levels of ABCG2, K3, K12, and K19 using
qRT-PCR. All four genes expressed in the cultured
cells, but their levels differed in the AMEED and
control groups (Fig .1E). Compared to the cells in the
negative control group, ABCG2 and K19 upregulated
in cells treated with 0.1-1 mg/ml AMEED and those
in the positive control group. However, K3 and K12
downregulated in the AMEED and positive control
groups in comparison to the negative control group.
Interestingly, cells treated with 0.1-1 mg/ml AMEED
expressed a higher level of ABCG2 mRNA and a lower
level of K3 mRNA compared with the positive control
group (P<0.05, Fig .1E). In contrast, there were no
differences in the expressions of K12 and K19 between
the AMEED groups and the positive control group
(P>0.05, Fig .1E).
Amniotic membrane extract eye drops promotes
corneal healing in a rabbit model
We evaluated the effect of AMEED on corneal
healing. Corneal defects were mechanically produced
in 10 rabbits, after which AMEED was administered
every 2 hours in the first group and every 6 hours in
the second group.The modelling healed during 6 days in the AMEED
group and was delayed in the control group (Fig .2A-D).
Histopathologic observations confirmed that mitosis
was normal in the healing area at 2 weeks post-
treatment in both AMEED groups (Fig .2E, F).
Fig.2
Corneal epithelium healing, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining of cornea and healing analysis in animal models. A-D. Corneal epithelium healing
during 6-days post-corneal defect. Group 1 received amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED) each 2 hours. Fluorescein did not stain the intact
cornea; rather, the wounded area was stained. Dots show the fluorescein positive area, E. Prominent mitoses at the level of the basal epithelium in both
the control and test corneas of a group 1 rabbit 3 months post-treatment, (H&E, ×1000), F. Superficial epithelial cells with pale hypochromatic and plump
spindle-shaped nuclei and pale cytoplasm at the cornea section seen in both groups (both left and right eyes) at 3 months post-treatment(H&E, ×1000),
G. Diameter of rabbits’corneal epithelium defect (CED), H. Lid edema, and I. Conjunctiva injection in group 1 (G1) and group 2 (G2) in comparison to their
controls at 6 days of treatment.
The diameter of the CED in both AMEED groups
was significantly lower than the control group
(P=0.017). The healing time was shorter in the second
group that received AMEED each 6 hours on a daily
basis (Fig .2G). The mean degree of eyelid oedema and
chemosis (Table 2) were lower in the AMEED groups.
This finding was particularly notable in the first group
compared with the control group (P=0.006, Fig .2H,
Table 2).
Table 2
Chemosis, discharge, and photophobia symptoms after corneal healing
Chemosis
G1 (2 hours)
G2 (6 hours)
Days
D1
D2
D3
D4
D6
D5
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
1 (R)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mi
0
0
0
0
0
1 (L)
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
0
Mi
Mi
0
0
0
0
2 (R)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mi
0
0
0
0
0
2 (L)
S
Mo
0
0
0
0
Mi
Mi
0
0
0
0
3 (R)
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
0
Mi
0
0
0
0
0
3 (L)
Mo
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
Mi
Mi
0
0
0
0
4 (R)
Mo
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
S
Mo
0
0
0
0
4 (L)
Mi
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
0
5 (R)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mo
0
0
0
0
0
5 (L)
Mi
Mi
0
0
0
0
Mo
Mi
Mi
0
0
0
Discharge
G1 (2 hours)
G2 (6 hours)
Days
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
1 (R)
0
0
0
0
0
0
S
0
0
0
0
0
1 (L)
Mi
0
0
0
0
0
S
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
2 (R)
Mi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 (L)
S
Mo
0
0
0
0
S
0
Mi
0
0
0
3 (R)
Mo
Mo
0
0
0
0
Mi
Mo
0
0
0
0
3 (L)
Mi
Mo
0
0
0
0
Mo
Mi
Mi
0
0
0
4 (R)
Mo
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
S
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
4 (L)
0
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
Mi
Mi
0
0
0
0
5 (R)
0
0
0
0
0
0
S
Mo
0
0
0
0
5 (L)
0
0
0
0
0
0
S
S
Mo
Mi
0
0
Photophobia
G1 (2 hours)
G2 (6 hours)
Days
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
1 (R)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mi
Mi
1 (L)
Mi
0
0
0
0
0
Mo
Mo
0
0
0
0
2 (R)
Mi
Mi
0
Mi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 (L)
0
Mo
Mi
Mi
Mi
0
0
0
Mi
0
0
0
3 (R)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mo
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
3 (L)
Mo
Mo
0
Mi
Mi
0
0
0
Mi
Mi
0
0
4 (R)
Mo
Mo
Mi
Mi
0
0
S
Mo
Mi
0
0
0
4 (L)
Mi
Mo
Mi
Mi
0
0
S
Mo
Mi
Mi
0
0
5 (R)
Mi
0
0
0
0
0
S
0
0
0
0
0
5 (L)
Mi
Mi
Mi
Mi
0
0
S
0
Mi
0
Mi
0
R; Right eye as test group, L; Left eye as control group, Mi; Mild, Mo; Moderate, and S; Severe.
Limbal cell growth with amniotic membrane extract eye drop (AMEED) exposure and gene expression chart. A. Limbal explants grown in limbal
medium (LM) supplemented with 0.1 and 1 mg/ml of AMEED as the test groups, 10% foetal bovine serum (FBS) as the positive control, and serum-free LM
as the negative control (scale bar: 200 µm), B. The diameter of the area covered by limbal stem cells (LSCs) divided on the diameter of the culture area of
the plate, then multiplied by 100, C. LSCs were dissociated from explant cultures, re-seeded, and incubated with AMEED to evaluate the growth rate in each
group, D. Cell cytotoxicity assessed 24 hours post-treatment by AMEED on dissociated cells from an explant culture using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5diphenyltetrazolium
(MTT), and E. Expression of ATP-binding cassette sub-family G member 2 (ABCG2, stemness related marker), K3, K12 (corneal related
marker), and K19 (conjunctival/corneal differentiation marker) were evaluated in 14-day explant cultured cells by quantitative real-time polymerase chain
reaction (qRT-PCR). Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) was the internal control and data was normalized by the negative control. Each
bar represents the mean ± SD of at least three different experiments.
*; P=0.01 and **; P=0.001.Corneal epithelium healing, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining of cornea and healing analysis in animal models. A-D. Corneal epithelium healing
during 6-days post-corneal defect. Group 1 received amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED) each 2 hours. Fluorescein did not stain the intact
cornea; rather, the wounded area was stained. Dots show the fluorescein positive area, E. Prominent mitoses at the level of the basal epithelium in both
the control and test corneas of a group 1 rabbit 3 months post-treatment, (H&E, ×1000), F. Superficial epithelial cells with pale hypochromatic and plump
spindle-shaped nuclei and pale cytoplasm at the cornea section seen in both groups (both left and right eyes) at 3 months post-treatment(H&E, ×1000),
G. Diameter of rabbits’corneal epithelium defect (CED), H. Lid edema, and I. Conjunctiva injection in group 1 (G1) and group 2 (G2) in comparison to their
controls at 6 days of treatment.Chemosis, discharge, and photophobia symptoms after corneal healingR; Right eye as test group, L; Left eye as control group, Mi; Mild, Mo; Moderate, and S; Severe.The mean degree of conjunctival injection reduced by
approximately 5-fold in both AMEED groups compared
with the control group (P=0.05, Fig .2I). The mean
discharge score in both AMEED groups was greater than
the control group (by 3.77- and 1.17-fold, respectively),
but the differences were not significant (P=0.05, Table 2). The mean degree of photophobia was also different
in the AMEED groups compared with the control group.
However, the differences were not significant (Table 2).
Concentrations of growth factors in amniotic
membrane extract eye drops
The standardized AMEED could be used to promote
corneal healing in patients or as a supplement in an ex
vivo LSC culture. We analysed the concentration of
growth factors (EGF, KGF, HGF, and IL-1RA) in four
random batches of AMEED during different time points of
preservation by using ELISA kits as previously described.
However, we could not assess their bioactivities. The
concentration of growth factors was stable during 7 days
of storage at 2-8°C (refrigerator) and for a maximum
of 2 days at 25°C (room temperature, P>0.05, Fig .3).
Although the concentrations of growth factors varied by
the time when preserved at -70, these differences were
not significant for EGF (at least until 3 months), HGF
and KGF (approximately 10 months), and IL-1RA (12
months) as seen in Table 3. In order to obtain a more
complete understanding, the bioactivity of each growth
factor should be evaluated under different conditions and
time points.
Fig.3
Stability of amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED) during different time and temperature preservations. A, B. The graphs show stability of
the AMEED growth factors for 7 days at 4°C (refrigerator) and 2 days, and C, D. At 25°C (room temperature).
Stability of amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED) during different time and temperature preservations. A, B. The graphs show stability of
the AMEED growth factors for 7 days at 4°C (refrigerator) and 2 days, and C, D. At 25°C (room temperature).Concentration of growth factors in amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED) pre- and post-storage at -70˚All data are mean ± SD (pg/ml). ND; Not determined.
Discussion
The ideal method for LSC expansion and transplantation
into patients who have CED should involve: i. A high
level of safety with respect to the prevention of disease
transmission, ii. Maintenance of LSC self-renewal
capability; and iii. Ability of the LSCs to differentiate into
corneal epithelial cells in a targeted manner (i.e., after
transplantation) in order to protect the ocular surface (1719).
FBS/foetal calf serum has been used in most previous
clinical protocols for ex vivo human LSC expansion (20,
21). However, the use of FBS increases the risk of disease
transmission and leads to unnecessary intracellular
accumulation of bovine antigens (22) that can cause
transplantation failure by inducing an immune response
against the bovine antigens by the proliferating cells (23).
Therefore, the use of autologous or cord blood serum (24,
25) and xeno- and serum-free culture conditions (26, 27)
have been suggested.The literature clearly indicates that HAMs in intact
or extract forms are suitable to promote ocular surface
reconstruction (28-31). However, few studies have
explored the effectiveness HAM extracts on LSC
cultures. Therefore, we have produced AMEED for use as
a supplement for ex vivo LSC expansion. The supplement
is free from animal products and other exogenous growth
factors, which makes it an ideal candidate for enhancing
in vivo LSC proliferation and for use as a topical treatment
to heal corneal defects. We have tested the efficacy of
AMEED for LSC expansion ex vivo and as treatment of
corneal defects in an animal model.Our results concurred with those by Dudok et al. (32)
in 2015, which mentioned that human LSCs proliferated
in tissue culture without the support of HAM. The ex vivo
analysis revealed that the optimum dose of AMEED for
LSC culture was 0.1 mg/ml and in vivo analysis indicated
that the optimum dose in the rabbit model was 1 mg/ml.At these concentrations in the ex vivo culture, the
expression of ABCG2 significantly upregulated and
the expression of K3 significantly reduced. We showed
that concentrations ≥2 mg/ml were cytotoxic; however,
the lower concentration did not have any effect on
proliferation. In a pilot study, we found that continuous
addition of AMEED to culture medium led to a decrease
in proliferation and an increase in apoptosis (data not
shown). We found that AMEED appeared to limit LSC
differentiation; however, this should be confirmed at the
protein level by Western blot or flow cytometry analysis.These data indicated that the growth factor content of
AMEED has a dose-dependent effect during culture and
treatment; thus, accumulation of growth factors must be
avoided. We assessed and verified the stability of the most
important growth factors-EGF, KGF, HGF, and IL-1RA in
AMEED under different conditions. The results showed
that the growth factors in AMEED were stable for at least
10 months at -70°C, 7 days in a ref (pg/ml) rigerator (28
°C), and 2 days at room temperature.Subsequently, we tested the efficacy of 1 mg/ml AMEED
to heal corneal defects in a rabbit model. The results showed
that administration of AMEED every 2 hours was more
effective than administration at 6-hour intervals. Previous
research using in vitro wound-healing models has shown
a positive dose-dependent effect of HAM suspensions on
corneal re-epithelialization (10, 13, 33).We believe that the cellular factors that make HAM
transplantation an effective technique for the management
of ocular disorders are present in AMEED. Our previous
study has revealed that lumican, osteoglycin/memican,
collagen a type IV, and fibrinogen were among the
most abundant proteins in AMEED as well as lower
concentrations of periplakin, pidogen 2, transglutaminase
2, and tubulointerstitial nephritis (2). Other researchers
have reported that HAM contains EGF, KGF, HGF,
and transforming growth factor (TGF) α and ß (34).
These factors promote epithelial cell migration and
differentiation, adherence between epithelial cells, and
corneal epithelialization between the epithelium and
basement membrane. It has been shown that AMEED
leads to a significant increase in limbal epithelial cell
migration and proliferation. It appears that AMEED can
downregulate the activity of collagenoblasts (related to
the effects of TGF-ß1, ß2-and, ß3) in wounds, prevent
fibroblasts from converting to collagenoblasts, promote
the restoration of the cornea propria, and decrease scarring
(35-37).The preparation of AMEED is technically demanding
(38); however, once prepared, AMEED can be stored
for at least one year at -70°C. Therefore, in comparison
to HAM transplantation, the use of AMEED is simpler,
more convenient, and less likely to be associated
with complications such as progression of the corneal
surface disorder, calcification, inflammation and corneal
thinning or perforation (39, 40). HAMs lyse 1-2 weeks
after transplantation, thereby necessitating repeated
transplantations. This issue is not observed with AMEED.
Conclusion
AMEED increases LSC proliferation ex vivo and
accelerates corneal epithelium healing in vivo without any
adverse effects. Therefore, it could be used for corneal
defect healing in humans and as a supplement in limbal or
corneal cell therapy.
Table 1
Oligonucleotide primers used for real-time polymerase chain reaction
Gene name
Gene symbol
Primer sequences (5′-3′)
Product length (bp)
Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase
GAPDH
F: CTC ATT TCC TGG TAT GAC AAC GA
121
R: CTT CCT CTT GTG CTC TTG CT
Protein p63
P63
F:TTT CAG AGG CAA TCC ACA CA
137
R: ATG CAT GCA AAT GAG CTC TG
ATP-binding cassette sub-family G member 2
ABCG2
F:CTC TTC TTC CTG ACG ACC AAC C
515
R: CAC ACT CTG ACC TGC TGC TAT G
Cytokeratin 3
KRT3
F: AGA CTT CAA GAA GAA ATA TGA G
141
R: TCA TCT ATC AAG GCA TCC AC
Cytokeratin 12
KRT12
F: TGC GAG CTC TAG AAG AGG CTA
255
R: CCT CGT GGT TCT TCT TCA TGT A
Cytokeratin 19
KRT19
F: TGA GGT CAT GGC CGA GCA GAA C
216
R: CAT GAG CCG CTG GTA CTC CTG A
Table 3
Concentration of growth factors in amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED) pre- and post-storage at -70˚
Pre-storage
Post-storage at -70˚C (pg/ml)
1.5months
3.0months
10months
12months
Epithelial growth factor (EGF)
211.15 ± 40.4
218.08 ± 53.8
186.73 ± 68.3
ND
ND
Hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)
3571.00 ± 1011.2
3511.00 ± 983.4
ND
2636 ± 1034.5
ND
Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF)
20.75 ± 22.2
ND
39.50 ± 13.8
44.50 ± 24.4
ND
Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA)
1765.00 ± 195.4
1743.33 ± 156.7
1992.222
1360
1688.88
All data are mean ± SD (pg/ml). ND; Not determined.
Authors: Ghasem Yazdanpanah; Zeeshan Haq; Kai Kang; Sayena Jabbehdari; Mark L Rosenblatt; Ali R Djalilian Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Uma Vaidyanathan; Grant C Hopping; Harry Y Liu; Anisha N Somani; Yasmyne C Ronquillo; Phillip C Hoopes; Majid Moshirfar Journal: Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol Date: 2019
Authors: Sara I Van Acker; Zoë P Van Acker; Michel Haagdorens; Isabel Pintelon; Carina Koppen; Nadia Zakaria Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: S Sharareh Mahdavi; Mohammad J Abdekhodaie; Shohreh Mashayekhan; Alireza Baradaran-Rafii; Ali R Djalilian Journal: Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 4.169