4.6 Article

A physical biomarker of the quality of cultured corneal endothelial cells and of the long-term prognosis of corneal restoration in patients

Journal

NATURE BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 3, Issue 12, Pages 953-960

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41551-019-0429-9

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Nakatani Foundation
  2. JSPS [17H00855, 16K05515]
  3. MEXT [16KT0070]
  4. Highway Program for Realization of Regenerative Medicine of the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  5. Research Project for Practical Applications of Regenerative Medicine of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17H00855, 16KT0070, 16K05515] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dysfunction of the corneal endothelium reduces the transparency of the cornea and can cause blindness. Because corneal endothelial cells have an extremely limited proliferative ability in vivo, treatment for corneal endothelial dysfunction involves the transplantation of donor corneal tissue. Corneal endothelium can also be restored via intraocular injection of endothelial cells in suspension after their expansion in vitro. Yet, because quality assessment during the expansion of the cells is a destructive process, a substantial number of the cultured cells are lost. Here, we show that the 'spring constant' of the effective interaction potential between endothelial cells in a confluent monolayer serves as a biomarker of the quality of corneal endothelial cells in vitro and of the long-term prognosis of corneal restoration in patients treated with culture-expanded endothelial cells or with transplanted corneas. The biomarker can be measured from phase contrast imaging in vitro and from specular microscopy in vivo, and may enable a shift from passive monitoring to pre-emptive intervention in patients with severe corneal disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available