4.1 Article

Non-invasive measurement of retinal permeability in a diabetic rat model

期刊

MICROCIRCULATION
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/micc.12623

关键词

Fick's Law; fundus fluorescein angiography; non-toxic; permeability; quantitative; retina; sensitive; vessel

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MR/P003214/1, MR/L01985X/1]
  2. Masonic Charitable Foundation
  3. National Eye Research Centre
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/P003214/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [MR/L01985X/1, MR/P003214/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The gold standard for measuring blood-retinal barrier permeability is the Evans blue assay. However, this technique has limitations in vivo, including non-specific tissue binding and toxicity. This study describes a non-toxic, high-throughput, and cost-effective alternative technique that minimizes animal usage. Methods Sodium fluorescein fundus angiography was performed in non-diabetic and diabetic Brown Norway rats on days 0, 7, 14, 21, and 28. Sodium fluorescein intensity in the retinal interstitium and a main retinal vessel were measured over time. The intensity gradients were used to quantify retinal vascular permeability. Post-study eyes were fixed, dissected, and stained (isolectin B4) to measure required parameters for permeability quantification including total vessel length per retinal volume, radius, and thickness. Results In the non-diabetic cohort retinal permeability remained constant over the 28-day study period. However, in the diabetic cohort there was a significant and progressive increase in retinal permeability from days 14-28 (P < .01, P < .001, P < .0001). Conclusions This novel imaging methodology in combination with mathematical quantification allows retinal permeability to be non-invasively and accurately measured at multiple time points in the same animal. In addition, this technique is a non-toxic, rapid, sensitive, and cost-effective alternative to the Evans blue assay.

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

4.1
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