4.7 Review

Animal models of ocular angiogenesis: from development to pathologies

期刊

FASEB JOURNAL
卷 31, 期 11, 页码 4665-4681

出版社

FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL
DOI: 10.1096/fj.201700336R

关键词

choroidal neovascularization; corneal angiogenesis; macular degeneration; retinal vasculature; retinopathy

资金

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Eye Institute [R01-EY024963]
  2. Boston Children's Hospital Ophthalmology Foundation
  3. Massachusetts Lions Eye Research Fund, Inc.
  4. BrightFocus Foundation
  5. Knights Templar Eye Foundation Pediatric Ophthalmology Career-Starter Research Grants
  6. Boston Children's Hospital Faculty Career Development Grant OFD/BTREC/CTREC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pathological angiogenesis in the eye is an important feature in the pathophysiology of many vision-threatening diseases, including retinopathy of prematurity, diabetic retinopathy, and age-related macular degeneration, as well as corneal diseases with abnormal angiogenesis. Development of reproducible and reliable animal models of ocular angiogenesis has advanced our understanding of both the normal development and the pathobiology of ocular neovascularization. These models have also proven to be valuable experimental tools with which to easily evaluate potential antiangiogenic therapies beyond eye research. This review summarizes the current available animal models of ocular angiogenesis. Models of retinal and choroidal angiogenesis, including oxygen-induced retinopathy, laser-induced choroidal neovascularization, and transgenic mouse models with deficient or spontaneous retinal/choroidal neovascularization, as well as models with induced corneal angiogenesis, are widely used to investigate the molecular and cellular basis of angiogenic mechanisms. Theoretical concepts and experimental protocols of these models are outlined, as well as their advantages and potential limitations, which may help researchers choose the most suitable models for their investigative work.

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

4.7
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