4.6 Article

Corneal stromal changes following reconstruction by ex vivo expanded limbal epithelial cells in rabbits with total limbal stem cell deficiency

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue 12, Pages 1509-1514

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.12.1509

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY06819, R01 EY006819] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To study corneal stromal changes and the presence of myofibroblasts after transplantation of ex vivo expanded limbal epithelium. Methods: A state of limbal deficiency was induced in 16 rabbits. After transplantation with autologous ex vivo expanded limbal epithelium on amniotic membrane ( AM), their clinical outcomes were classified as success, partial success or failure according to surface smoothness, stromal clarity, and vascularisation. Clinical outcomes were correlated with phenotypic outcomes of corneal, conjunctival, or mixed epithelium, defined by expression of K3 keratin or MUC5AC. Immunostaining was performed with antibodies against collagen IV, fibronectin, and alpha- smooth muscle actin (alpha-SMA) to assess stromal wound remodelling. Results: Rabbits were sacrificed after a mean follow up of 10 ( SD 3.3) months. Collagen IV, expressed in the basement membrane of all three groups, was found in the stroma of the partial success, but not in that of the success or the failure. Fibronectin was absent in the success and the failure, but expressed in the stroma of the partial success. alpha-SMA was expressed in superficial stroma of the partial success, but suppressed in areas with AM remnants. Conclusion: Restoration of a clear and transparent cornea is associated with a normal corneal epithelium and complete wound remodelling. In contrast, wound healing remains active and incomplete in conjunctivalised corneas, which remain opaque with myofibroblasts.

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