4.6 Article

Effectiveness of iron repletion in the diet for the optic nerve development of anaemic rats

期刊

EYE
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 901-908

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2009.205

关键词

iron repletion; optic nerve; rat; development; iron-deficiency anaemia

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [BPD/26477/2006]
  3. Financiamento Plurianual do IBMC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To compare the process of myelination in the developing optic nerve (ON) of anaemic rats with the subsequent recovery after being fed an iron-recovery diet. Methods In this study, the morphometrical parameters in the ON were assessed by electron microscopy in Wistar rats that were on an iron-deficient diet for 32 days or for 21 days followed by 10 days on an iron-recovery diet. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed using representative electron ultramicrographs. Data were analysed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). When differences were detected, comparisons were made using Tukey's post hoc test (P<0.05 was considered to be significant). Results Qualitative analysis of the ONs in anaemic and recovered animals showed a higher rate of deformed axons and increased lamellar separation in the myelin sheath when compared with the respective control group. The ON of the anaemic group showed a reduced mean density of myelinated fibres when compared with the control group. The fibre area ratio, axon area ratio, and myelin area ratio of large axons/small axons in the ONs of the control group showed the highest values for the myelin areas, axon areas, and total fibre areas. The control group showed a significantly higher myelin sheath thickness when compared with the anaemic and recovered groups. Conclusions Our data indicate that iron is necessary for maintenance of the ON cell structure, and that morphological damage from iron deficiency is not easily reverted by iron repletion. Eye (2010) 24, 901-908; doi:10.1038/eye.2009.205; published online 14 August 2009

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