4.2 Article

A model to study complement involvement in experimental retinal degeneration

Journal

UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
Volume 123, Issue 1, Pages 28-42

Publisher

UPSALA MED SOC
DOI: 10.1080/03009734.2018.1431744

Keywords

AMD; complement system; ocular diseases; retina; RPE

Funding

  1. Carmen and Bertil Regners Foundation
  2. Crown Princess Margaretas Committee for the Blind
  3. Olle Engqvist Foundation
  4. Sven and Dagmar Salens Foundation
  5. Ogonfonden ('The Eye Foundation')
  6. FORSS (Medical Research Council of Southeast Sweden)
  7. faculty of Medical Sciences at Orebro University
  8. Linnaeus University
  9. Swedish Medical Research Council (VR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The complement system (CS) plays a role in the pathogenesis of a number of ocular diseases, including diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, uveitis, and age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Given that many of the complex eye-related degenerative diseases have limited treatment opportunities, we aimed to mimic the in vivo retinal degenerative process by developing a relevant co-culture system. Method and materials: The adult porcine retina was co-cultured with the spontaneously arising human retinal pigment epithelial cells-19 (ARPE-19). Results: Inflammatory activity was found after culture and included migrating microglial cells, gliosis, cell death, and CS activation (demonstrated by a minor increase in the secreted anaphylotoxin C3a in co-culture). CS components, including C1q, C3, C4, soluble C5b-9, and the C5a receptor, were expressed in the retina and/or ARPE cells after culture. C1q, C3, and CS regulators such as C4 binding protein (C4BP), factor H (CFH), and factor I (CFI) were secreted after culture. Discussion: Thus, our research indicates that this co-culturing system may be useful for investigations of the CS and its involvement in experimental neurodegenerative diseases.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available