4.5 Article

Early retinal damage in experimental diabetes: Electroretinographical and morphological observations

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL EYE RESEARCH
卷 74, 期 5, 页码 615-625

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/exer.2002.1170

关键词

electroretinogram; diabetic retinopathy; glial fibrillary acidic protein; streptozotocin; rat; retina; Muller cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing body of evidence indicates that impairment of retinal function precedes the earliest signs of vascular complications. The aim of this study was to follow the development of retinopathy both functionally and morphologically in a rat model of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes was induced in rats by intravenous injection of streptozotocin (STZ). Age-matched rats raised under similar conditions served as control. The electroretinogram (ERG) was recorded in order to assess retinal function. The expression of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in Muller cells was used as a cellular marker for retinal damage. The ERG responses of the diabetic rats were reduced in amplitude compared to the responses recorded from the control rats as early as 2 weeks after onset of diabetes. The b-wave was more affected than the a-wave. GFAP expression in the diabetic retina did not differ from that in the control retina during the first 5 weeks of diabetes. GFAP was demonstrated only in astrocytes in the vitreo-retinal border. After 6-7 weeks of diabetes, GFAP expression in the retinas of the diabetic rats was also detected in the endfeet of the Muller cells. With the progression of diabetes, GFAP expression spreads throughout the entire length of the Muller cells. In the retinas from control rats. GFAP expression was limited to astrocytes and was not detected in Muller cells even at 40 weeks of follow-up. The observations indicate that the functional integrity of retinal cells is compromised already at short time intervals after onset of experimental diabetes in rats. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.

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

4.5
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