4.2 Article

Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitor Modulation of Intraocular Pressure Is Independent of Soluble Adenylyl Cyclase

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2022.0180

关键词

intraocular pressure; IOP; soluble adenylyl cyclase; cAMP; pharmacological inhibitors; carbonic anhydrase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated whether a clinically used carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CAIs) can modulate intraocular pressure (IOP) through soluble adenylyl cyclase (sAC) signaling. IOP was measured 1 h after topical treatment with brinzolamide, a topically applied and clinically used CAIs, using direct cannulation of the anterior chamber in sAC knockout (KO) mice or C57BL/6J mice in the presence or absence of the sAC inhibitor (TDI-10229). The results showed that mice treated with the sAC inhibitor TDI-10229 had elevated IOP. On the other hand, CAIs treatment significantly decreased increased IOP in wild-type, sAC KO mice, as well as TDI-10229-treated mice. These findings suggest that inhibiting carbonic anhydrase reduces IOP independently from sAC in mice, and brinzolamide regulates IOP through a signaling cascade that does not involve sAC.
Purpose: We investigated whether a clinically used carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CAIs) can modulate intraocular pressure (IOP) through soluble adenylyl cyclase (sAC) signaling.Methods: IOP was measured 1 h after topical treatment with brinzolamide, a topically applied and clinically used CAIs, using direct cannulation of the anterior chamber in sAC knockout (KO) mice or C57BL/6J mice in the presence or absence of the sAC inhibitor (TDI-10229).Results: Mice treated with the sAC inhibitor TDI-10229 had elevated IOP. CAIs treatment significantly decreased increased intraocular pressure (IOP) in wild-type, sAC KO mice, as well as TDI-10229-treated mice.Conclusions: Inhibiting carbonic anhydrase reduces IOP independently from sAC in mice. Our studies suggest that the signaling cascade by which brinzolamide regulates IOP does not involve sAC.

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

4.2
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