4.6 Article

Autophagy in Retinal Ganglion Cells in a Rhesus Monkey Chronic Hypertensive Glaucoma Model

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077100

关键词

-

资金

  1. Key Project of the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [10251008901000028]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81270992]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [10451008901004759, s2011010006058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by physiological intraocular hypertension that causes damage to the retinal ganglion cells (RGCs). In the past, RGC damage in POAG was suggested to have been attributed to RGC apoptosis. However, in the present study, we applied a model closer to human POAG through the use of a chronic hypertensive glaucoma model in rhesus monkeys to investigate whether another mode of progressive cell death, autophagy, was activated in the glaucomatous retinas. First, in the glaucomatous retinas, the levels of LC3B-II, LC3B-II/LC3B-I and Beclin 1 increased as demonstrated by Western blot analyses, whereas early or initial autophagic vacuoles (AVi) and late or degraded autophagic vacuoles (AVd) accumulated in the ganglion cell layer (GCL) and in the inner plexiform layer (IPL) as determined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis. Second, lysosome activity and autophagosome-lysosomal fusion increased in the RGCs of the glaucomatous retinas, as demonstrated by Western blotting against lysosome associated membrane protein-1 (LAMP1) and double labeling against LC3B and LAMP1. Third, apoptosis was activated in the glaucomatous eyes with increased levels of caspase-3 and cleaved caspase-3 and an increased number of TUNEL-positive RGCs. Our results suggested that autophagy was activated in RGCs in the chronic hypertensive glaucoma model of rhesus monkeys and that autophagy may have potential as a new target for intervention in glaucoma treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据