| Literature DB >> 31040126 |
Richard H Foxton1, Sabine Uhles1, Sabine Grüner1, Franco Revelant1, Christoph Ullmer1.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31040126 PMCID: PMC6505683 DOI: 10.15252/emmm.201810204
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EMBO Mol Med ISSN: 1757-4676 Impact factor: 12.137
Figure 1Reduction of vessel leakiness and lesion number by combined neutralization of VEGF‐A and ANG‐2 in the JR5558 mice using FFA
(A) Study schematic. Baseline FFA was carried out at P44‐45. Antibody injections were given IP on P46 and P53. Post‐treatment FFA was at P60 and tissue harvest at P61. (B) Bar/scatter graph of baseline lesion numbers. Lesions were counted in all mice prior to study start. Combined total lesions from left and right eyes were calculated, and then, animals were assigned to treatment groups ensuring no statistically significant differences between groups (P > 0.05). (C, D) Bar/scatter graphs showing numbers of spontaneously occurring lesions (C) and area by fluorescence angiography (D) after two weekly doses of antibody (IgG, anti‐VEGF‐A, anti‐ANG‐2 at 5 mg/kg IP, and anti‐VEGF‐A/ANG‐2 at 10 mg/kg IP) followed by analysis a week after the last treatment. (E) Representative examples of fluorescence fundus angiograms from the untreated (top left), IgG control (top middle; 10 mg/kg), anti‐VEGF‐A (bottom left; 5 mg/kg), anti‐ANG‐2 (bottom middle; 5 mg/kg), and anti‐VEGF‐A/ANG‐2 (bottom right; 10 mg/kg) groups. Data information: SEM is shown as error bars with n = 9–10 animals (B) or n = 19–20 (C, D) eyes per group and significance indicated by asterisks using ANOVA (B: P > 0.05; C: P < 0.0001; D: P < 0.0001, followed by Newman–Keul's multiple comparison test in C, D). In (C), untreated is significantly different versus IgG control (*P < 0.05) and anti‐VEGF‐A/ANG‐2 (***P < 0.001). IgG control is significantly different versus anti‐VEGF‐A (****P < 0.0001), anti‐ANG‐2 (****P < 0.0001), and anti‐VEGF‐A/ANG‐2 (****P < 0.0001). In (D), untreated is significantly different versus IgG control (*P < 0.05), anti‐VEGF‐A (***P < 0.001), anti‐ANG‐2 (***P < 0.001), and anti‐VEGF‐A/ANG‐2 (****P < 0.0001). IgG control is significantly different versus anti‐VEGF‐A (****P < 0.0001), anti‐ANG‐2 (****P < 0.0001), and anti‐VEGF‐A/ANG‐2 (****P < 0.0001). Anti‐VEGF‐A/ANG‐2 is significantly different versus anti‐VEGF‐A (*P < 0.05) and anti‐ANG‐2 (**P < 0.01). FFA, fluorescein fundus angiography; P, post‐natal day; AB, antibody; IP, intraperitoneal; SEM, standard error of the mean; ANOVA, analysis of variance.Source data are available online for this figure.
Figure 2Combined neutralization of VEGF‐A and ANG‐2 reduced the number of Iba1+ macrophages in the JR5558 mice
(A) Bar/scatter graph of the number of Iba1+ cells in the subretinal space of mice treated with 10 mg/kg IgG control, 5 mg/kg anti‐VEGF‐A, 5 mg/kg anti‐ANG‐2, 10 mg/kg anti‐VEGF‐A/ANG‐2, or left untreated. Data are shown as mean ± SEM with n = 5 animals per group, and asterisk denotes significant changes after one‐way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple t‐test (Tukey–Kramer HSD). Anti‐VEGF‐A/ANG‐2 is significantly different from IgG control (*P < 0.02). (B) Representative examples of flat‐mounted RPE/choroid Iba1 (red) and IB4 counterstain (green) of untreated (top left), IgG control (top middle; 10 mg/kg), anti‐VEGF‐A (bottom left; 5 mg/kg), anti‐ANG‐2 (bottom middle; 5 mg/kg), and anti‐VEGF‐A/ANG‐2 (bottom right; 10 mg/kg). Adjustment of brightness to 100 using Photoshop CS6 was applied equally to all images, and non‐tissue background was removed using Lasso tool. Inserts show selected areas. Scale bars = 500 μm. SEM, standard error of the mean; ANOVA, analysis of variance.Source data are available online for this figure.