4.6 Article

Aqueous Humor Dynamics of the Brown-Norway Rat

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 59, 期 6, 页码 2529-2537

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.17-22915

关键词

outflow facility; anterior chamber; eye perfusion; in vivo

资金

  1. BrightFocus Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health [R21 EY023376, R01 EY027037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. The study aimed to provide a quantitative description of aqueous humor dynamics in healthy rat eyes. METHODS. One eye of 26 anesthetized adult Brown-Norway rats was cannulated with a needle connected to a perfusion pump and pressure transducer. Pressure-flow data were measured in live and dead eyes by varying pump rate (constant-flow technique) or by modulating pump duty cycle to hold intraocular pressure (IOP) at set levels (modified constant-pressure technique). Data were fit by the Goldmann equation to estimate conventional outflow facility (C) and unconventional outflow rate (Fun). Parameter estimates were respectively checked by inserting a shunt of similar conductance into the eye and by varying eye hydration methodology. RESULTS. Rat IOP averaged 14.6 +/- 1.9 mm Hg at rest. Pressure-flow data were repeatable and indistinguishable for the two perfusion techniques, yielding C =0.023 +/- 0.002 mu L/min/mm Hg and Fun = 0.096 +/- 0.024 lL/min. C was similar for live and dead eyes and increased upon shunt insertion by an amount equal to shunt conductance, validating measurement accuracy. At 100% humidity Fun dropped to 0.003 +/- 0.030 lL/min. Physiological washout was not observed (-0.35 +/- 0.65%/h), and trabecular anatomy looked normal. CONCLUSIONS. Rat aqueous humor dynamics are intermediate in magnitude compared to those in mice and humans, consistent with species differences in eye size. C does not change with time or death. Evaporation complicates measurement of Fun even when eyes are not enucleated. Absence of washout is a notable finding seen only in mouse and human eyes to date.

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