| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1From the Departments of Ophthalmology and 4Experimental Pathology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; the 2Schepens Eye Research Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and the 3T. Krwawicz Department of Ophthalmology and First Eye Hospital, Lublin University School of Medicine, Lublin, Poland.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract Materials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusions and ConsiderationsReferences |
|---|
METHODS. Neuroretinal tissue derived from mice that express green fluorescent protein (GFP) was fragmented and transplanted into the subretinal space of adult rd1 mice. In an in vitro system, two retinal pieces, derived from GFP and rd1 mice, respectively, were placed overlapping each other and forming either laminar–laminar pairs or fragment–laminar pairs. The glia-associated markers analyzed included glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), cellular retinaldehyde-binding protein (CRALBP), and two molecules known to inhibit neurite outgrowth: CD44 and neurocan. Bridging fibers and migrated cells were visualized with GFP fluorescence and retinal cell markers.
RESULTS. A thick CRALBP-immunolabeled band was observed in the interface in cultured laminar–laminar pairs, whereas a thinner band was seen in cultured fragment–laminar pairs and in transplants. Accumulation of CD44 and neurocan was also observed in the interface between abutting retinal pieces in all setups. GFP+ bridging fibers and GFP+ cells (some of which coexpressed neuronal markers) were observed within the abutting rd1 retina in some areas. However, such integration occurred exclusively where CRALBP, CD44, and neurocan immunolabeling appeared disrupted in the interface, but coincided with high GFAP expression within the rd1 retina.
CONCLUSIONS. The results demonstrate that, on the one hand, an accumulation of glial-associated inhibitory molecules in the interface correlates with limited integration between overlapping retinal pieces. On the other hand, glial reactivity within the rd1 retina does not appear to be incompatible with integration.
Using a recently developed in vitro system,13 we found that extensive bridging of neuronal fibers occurs between two abutting retinas when the retinal pieces are placed side by side, but not if they overlap each other (which simulates the in vivo situation of subretinal transplantation). In the latter, integration was observed only in places where the surfaces of both retinal pieces were disrupted at the interface, which conforms to findings in previous in vivo studies.5 12 14 After neuronal damage, an activation of glial cells occurs that involves structural and molecular changes, some of which have been reported to be inhibitory to neurite outgrowth.15 16 17 18 19 20 To examine whether reactive glial processes and accumulation of inhibitory molecules at the interface may contribute to the barring of fibers crossing through the retinal surfaces, we examined the distribution of certain glia-associated molecules in different setups: abutting retinas co-cultured to simulate subretinal transplantation of laminar or fragmented tissue and subretinal transplantation.
The proteins analyzed included the well-established glial cell markers, cellular retinaldehyde-binding protein (CRALBP) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), as well as CD44 and neurocan. CRALBP binds 11-cis-retinol, which can be used by cones to regenerate photopigment.21 22 23 In the normal retina, CRALBP expression is found in all cytoplasmic compartments of Müller cells but also in association with astrocytes during the first two postnatal weeks.24 CRALBP immunolabeling is particularly visible in association with the apical processes of Müller cells, at the level of the outer limiting membrane (OLM).21 CRALBP is used extensively to disclose retinal glial cell profiles, and previous studies have indicated that its expression is altered when the retina is challenged.25 GFAP is expressed almost exclusively in astrocytes in the normal retina, but its levels are rapidly upregulated also in Müller cells in response to retinal injury and is therefore often used as a marker of glial cell activation.26 27 CD44 is a cell surface glycoprotein involved in cell–matrix adhesion, motility, growth factor signaling, and metastasis.28 29 Neurocan is a major constituent of chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans in the developing central nervous system (CNS) and is involved in the regulation of cell migration, axonal growth, and axonal path finding.30 CD44 and neurocan are well-characterized hyaluronan-binding proteins, shown to inhibit neurite and axon outgrowth.28 29 30 31 32 33 They are both expressed in the adult normal retina: CD44 is found in the Müller cell apical processes, whereas neurocan is expressed at the level of the interphotoreceptor matrix (IPM) and in the nerve fiber layer.34 35 36 37 However, after injury or photoreceptor degeneration, the expression of these proteins is upregulated in glial cells,34 35 37 38 39 similar to observations in other areas of the CNS.19 20 40 41 42 43 44
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusions and ConsiderationsReferences |
|---|
Tissue Culture Preparation
The culture procedure has been described previously.13 Briefly, after the superior and nasal cornea was marked, the eyes were enucleated under sterile conditions and transferred to a dish containing serum-free medium (R16; Invitrogen-Gibco, Gaithersburg, MD).48 Each retina was dissected from the RPE and from the optic nerve head and was cut in fresh medium into four pieces along the superior–inferior and the nasal–temporal axes, in such a way that each quadrant could be identified. Retinal pieces from GFP and rd1 mice were placed flat and overlapping each other, forming laminar–laminar pairs (n = 6). In these pairs, the inner (vitreal) surface of the piece derived from P0 GFP mice faced the outer surface of the piece derived from P60 rd1 mice, thus simulating subretinal transplantation of a laminar sheet of donor tissue. In a second setup, fragmented pieces of retinas derived from the P0 GFP mice were placed abutting the outer surface of the piece derived from P60 rd1 mice (fragment–laminar pairs, n = 6), simulating subretinal transplantation of fragmented donor tissue. The retinal pairs were mounted on a cellulose filter attached to a polyamide grid, with the GFP-mouse–derived piece closest to the filter in laminar–laminar pairs and with the rd1-mouse–derived piece closest to the filter in fragment–laminar pairs. The pairs were incubated for 12 days in 1.6 mL of R16 serum-free medium at 37°C, and the medium was changed every 2 days. In the illustrations of cultured laminar–laminar pairs shown in the present study, the images were flipped vertically to fit with the orientation of transplant-recipient retinas.
Transplantation
The surgical procedure used for transplantation in this study has been described previously.2 12 49 Briefly, eyes of P0 or P5 GFP mice were enucleated. The neural retinas were dissected, transferred to fresh cold 4°C Ames’ medium (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and cut into small pieces. The retinal pieces did not include the RPE or the optic nerve head region. The P60 rd1 recipient mice were anesthetized by an intraperitoneal injection of xylazine (Rompun, 100 mg/kg; Bayer AG, Göteborg, Sweden) and ketamine (Ketalar, 100 mg/kg; Parke-Davis, NJ) and locally anesthetized with 1% amethocaine hydrochloride. Donor retinal tissue (0.7 µL total volume) was drawn into a plastic (polyethylene) pipette tip (GELoader Tip; Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) connected to a precision microsyringe (Hamilton, Reno, NV) and injected through the sclera into the superior subretinal space of the recipients. Transplant-recipients were anesthetized with carbon dioxide and decapitated at different survival times: Animals receiving P0 donor tissue (n = 8) were killed 7 days after transplantation, and animals receiving P5 donor tissue were killed 7 (n = 5) or 21 (n = 4) days after transplantation. No immunosuppression was used.
Tissue Preparation and Analysis
The transplant-recipient eyes were quickly enucleated, and the anterior segment, lens, and vitreous body were removed. The eyecups containing transplants and the explants were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde in Sörensen’s buffer (0.1 M; pH 7.2) and kept at room temperature for 2 hours. The tissue was subsequently rinsed, cryoprotected in Sörensen’s buffer containing increasing concentrations of sucrose, embedded in an albumin-gelatin medium (30 g egg albumin, 3 g gelatin, 100 mL distilled water), and frozen. Sections were obtained on a cryostat (12 µm), collected on gelatin/chrome alum-coated glass slides, air-dried, and stored at –20°C until further processing. Some sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin. The other sections were processed for immunohistochemistry using antibodies against well-established retinal neuronal and glial cell markers and against CD44 and neurocan. The primary antibody specifications and sources are listed in Table 1 . Sections were preincubated at room temperature for 90 minutes with 0.1 M PBS containing 0.25% Triton X-100, 1% BSA, and 5% normal serum, followed by incubation for 12 to 24 hours at 4°C with primary antibodies. After they were rinsed, sections were incubated for 90 minutes with Texas red sulfonyl chloride or Alexa Fluor 350 (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) conjugated to donkey anti-mouse, donkey anti-sheep, donkey anti-rat, donkey anti-rabbit, or goat anti-rat (1:100; Jackson ImmunoResearch, West Grove, PA, and Molecular Probes). After the staining was complete, the sections were rinsed, coverslipped with buffered glycerols containing the anti-fading agent phenylenediamine, and viewed with a light microscope equipped for fluorescence microscopy.
|
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusions and ConsiderationsReferences |
|---|
|
After subretinal transplantation to the adult rd1 mice, the GFP pieces showed a morphology analogous to that of fragmented pieces in culture, except that typical rosettes (with photoreceptors surrounded by inner retinal cells) were more often present in transplants (Fig. 1E) . The same was observed irrespective of the age of the donor tissue (P0 or P5). The host rd1 retina also demonstrated a histologic arrangement similar to that observed in the equivalent pieces in fragment–laminar cultures (Fig. 1E) .
Integration between GFP and rd1 Retinas
Both in vitro and in vivo, retinas derived from GFP mice exhibited a high level of GFP expression. This enabled easy localization of not only the border between the abutting pieces, but also of GFP-fluorescent (GFP+) cells and fibers within the rd1 piece. In cultured laminar–laminar pairs, GFP+ cells and processes were observed in the rd1 pieces, only near the edge of the abutting GFP piece (Figs. 1C 2D 3D 3E 4A) . In fragment–laminar pairs and after transplantation, GFP+ cells and processes were found within the rd1 piece, both at the edges and in a few places in the center of the overlapping area (Figs. 1D 1F 1G 1H 2H 2J 3F 3G 3H 3I 3J 3K 4B 4C 4D 4E 4F 4G 4H) . Most GFP+ cells observed within the rd1 retina were clustered in restricted areas, next to the interface or in the inner nuclear layer (INL), even at the longer survival time. Occasionally, a few GFP+ cells displaying a microglia-like morphology were found in the inner plexiform and ganglion cell layers (Fig. 4B) .
|
|
|
There was a large variation in the number of GFP+ cells and fibers within the rd1 retina between different specimens and different sections of the same specimen in all setups. No significant difference was found between specimens analyzed 7 (cells, 7.3 ± 9.3; fibers, 3.7 ± 3.2) and 21 (cells, 8.5 ± 1.8; fibers, 6.9 ± 1.7) days after transplantation.
CRALBP Expression
Immunolabeling of CRALBP disclosed the structural profile of glial cells in intact and manipulated retinas, including cultures and transplants. In intact retinas obtained from rd1 congenic control mice at P60, CRALBP immunoreactivity was observed in Müller cell bodies in the middle of the INL and in their radial processes spanning all layers of the retina. Labeling was also observed in association with the Müller cell apical processes, and in the inner retina, in association with their end feet (not shown). In intact rd1 mouse retinas at P60, the same distribution was observed. However, the density of immunolabeling appeared increased over the apical and vitreal Müller cell processes compared with normal retinas (not shown). In the cultured rd1 retinas and in the host rd1 retinas in transplantation, the Müller cell profile, as revealed by CRALBP immunostaining, was comparable to that of intact rd1 retinas, except that discontinuities were observed in the apical surface in some areas (Fig. 2) . The distribution of CRALBP in the GFP pieces of laminar–laminar pairs was comparable to that of intact retinas of the same age (not shown). As expected, the CRALBP-labeled structures appeared disorganized in retinas derived from GFP-mice, in the fragment–laminar pairs and in the transplants (Figs. 2E 2G 2I) .
In the center of the overlapping areas in laminar–laminar pairs, CRALBP-labeled processes appeared in a wide band at the interface of the two abutting retinas (Fig. 2A) . Most of these processes also expressed GFP (Fig. 2B) and seemed to correspond mostly to Müller cell end feet (and possibly also some astrocytes) located at the inner margin of the GFP piece. In a few sections, processes labeled for CRALBP but not for GFP were discernible at the outer surface of the rd1 pieces (Fig. 2B) . At the edges of the abutting retinal piece in laminar–laminar pairs, CRALBP accumulation was either not observed at the interface or was discontinuous (Figs. 2C 2D) . In fragment–laminar pairs and in transplants, CRALBP labeling was also observed at the interface, but was restricted to a thinner band than in laminar–laminar pairs. These CRALBP-labeled processes were situated along the apical surface of the rd1 pieces and did not express GFP (Figs. 2E 2F 2G 2H 2I 2J) . CRALBP labeling appeared mostly continuous at this level (Fig. 2E) , but gaps were observed not only in the edges but also in a few places in the center of the overlapping areas (Figs. 2G 2I) .
A direct correlation was noted between the presence of GFP+ cells (and of bridging fibers) within the abutting rd1 pieces and CRALBP labeling at the interface. In all setups, integration was observed only when and where CRALBP labeling appeared discontinuous or was absent at the interface (Figs. 2D 2H 2J) .
CD44 and Neurocan Expression
In intact retinas obtained from rd1 congenic control mice at P60, weak CD44 immunolabeling appeared diffusely distributed above the OLM (not shown). In intact retinas of adult rd1 mice, a more localized and intense labeling was observed at the same level (not shown). Accumulation of labeling was also noted in cultured pairs in the interface between the abutting pieces (Figs. 3A 3D 3F) and in the nonabutting areas in the apical surface of the rd1 retinal piece (not shown). In vivo, labeling was observed in the graft–host interface (Figs. 3H 3J 3K) and along the OLM in the rest of the host rd1 retina (not shown). In laminar–laminar pairs, neurocan immunolabeling was observed in the IPL of the GFP piece (Figs. 3B 3C 4E) . Weak neurocan immunoreactivity was detected in intact adult rd1 retinas and in their congenic controls in the outer surface of the retina and in the nerve fiber layer (not shown). In contrast, strong and distinct neurocan immunostaining was noted in the interface of the abutting pieces in cultured pairs (Figs. 3B 3E 3G) and in the graft–host interface (Fig. 3I) . Unlike CD44, distinct neurocan expression was not visible in the outer surface of rd1 pieces in the nonabutting areas in cultured pairs, and only weak neurocan immunolabeling was observed in the host rd1 retina, in areas away from the graft (not shown).
Double labeling of CD44 and neurocan disclosed the colocalization of CD44 and neurocan immunoreactivities in the interface of the abutting retinas in all setups (Figs. 3A 3B 3C) . Similar to observations with CRALBP, CD44 and neurocan immunolabeling appeared as continuous bands between the abutting pieces. However, irregular or no labeling was observed in regions where the retinal structure was disrupted. In laminar–laminar pairs, CD44 and neurocan immunolabeling were normally not seen in areas where the edge of one of the pieces came in contact with the other piece. In fragment–laminar pairs and in transplants, immunolabeling was absent in some places along the interface. GFP+ cells (located within the rd1 abutting piece) and bridging fibers were observed only in the areas where CD44 and neurocan labeling were absent at the interface in laminar–laminar pairs (Figs. 3D 3E) , in fragment–laminar pairs (Figs. 3F 3G) , and in transplants (Figs. 3H 3I 3J 3K) .
Immunohistochemical Identification of Migrated Cells
By using markers for specific retinal cell types (Table 1) , GFP+ cells were identified in intact retinas of GFP mice as photoreceptors and glial cells (high GFP expression) and as amacrine, horizontal, and bipolar cells (lower GFP expression). Likewise, in abutting retinas both in vitro and in vivo, some GFP+ cells in the rd1 piece also coexpressed glial or neuronal markers. Figures 4A 4B 4C 4D show examples of cultured laminar–laminar and fragment–laminar pairs in which GFP+ cells within the rd1 piece also expressed amacrine cell markers, such as nitric oxide synthase (NOS) and calretinin (Figs. 4A 4B 4C) and the horizontal and amacrine cell marker, calbindin (Fig. 4D) . It was possible in some cases to follow the processes of GFP+ cells within the rd1 piece projecting to the corresponding synaptic layers. GFP+ cells in the rd1 piece did not coexpress rhodopsin, suggesting that rod photoreceptors may not migrate into the abutting rd1 retinal piece.
GFAP Expression
GFAP labeling was observed not only in astrocytes but also in Müller cells in cultured retinas and in the graft and host retinas after transplantation (Figs. 4E 4F 4G 4H) . A few GFP+ cells and fibers in the abutting rd1 piece coexpressed GFAP. Further, colocalization of GFAP and GFP revealed that integration between the abutting pieces coincided with areas of particularly high GFAP immunoreactivity. Both, in laminar–laminar and fragment–laminar cultured pairs, GFP+ cells and fibers were found within the rd1 retinal piece in regions where intensely GFAP-labeled Müller cell processes were observed (Fig. 4F) . Likewise, in transplantation, integration occurred in areas where distinct GFAP signal was observed in the Müller cell radial processes and end feet and in the astrocytes of the host retina (Fig. 4H) .
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusions and ConsiderationsReferences |
|---|
Association of Lack of Integration with the Glial Boundary in the Interface
In the interface in fragment–laminar pairs and in transplantation, CRALBP immunostaining was observed along the outer surface of the rd1 retinal piece. The density of CRALBP immunostaining was increased in the retinal surfaces of intact rd1 retinas, of cultured GFP and rd1 retinas, and of rd1 host retinas compared with intact normal retinas, probably reflecting an activation of Müller cells. This conforms to previous observations on glial cell activation with outgrowth of Müller cell processes after retinal detachment or photoreceptor cell loss, for example.25 26 34 53 54 There are also indications that a, so-called, glial seal forms in the outer retina, as photoreceptors are lost.54 55 56 The precise correlation observed in the present study between a lack of integration and the presence of CRALBP and of at least two molecules inhibitory to neurite extension suggests that the Müller cell apical processes and the molecular environment at the interface are likely to play a role in limiting integration in the fragment–laminar configuration.
Numerous neurite growth-inhibitory molecules have been found to be upregulated on the surface of nonpermissive glial structures after injury to the CNS, as well as in the graft–host interface in brain cell transplantation, constituting a molecular barrier preventing graft-derived axons from entering the host.15 16 17 18 19 20 43 44 57 58 59 In the spinal cord, especially chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans appear to contribute to the nonpermissive properties of the glial scar tissue, since it has been observed that treatment with chondroitinase, enzyme-digesting chondroitin sulfate chains, promotes regeneration of axons and even functional recovery.60 An analysis of changes in the distribution and protein levels of five chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans in spinal cord scar tissue has also shown a robust increase in two of them, NG2 and neurocan, suggesting that particularly these proteoglycans play a role in preventing axon regeneration.44 Neurocan is synthesized and released during development, predominantly by neurons.30 61 However, the site of neurocan synthesis switches to reactive glia after injury or degeneration, leading to an upregulation around the glial cells, as shown in adult brain, spinal cord, and retina.19 20 37 38 42 43 44 62 63 Further, it has been shown that the upregulated neurocan is expressed in a sharp border defining the region of neuronal sprouting.42 CD44 is normally synthesized by glial cells in the CNS and is upregulated under pathologic conditions on the surface of reactive glial cells in the brain41 and in the retina.34 35 39 Both CD44 and neurocan bind hyaluronan, which has been detected in the mouse IPM (Rayborn ME, et al. IOVS 2002;43:ARVO E-Abstract 2862). CD44 has also been shown to bind to molecules modified with chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans,64 found in the IPM as well.37 65 66 67 Further, there is strong evidence that both CD44 and neurocan can inhibit retinal axon and neurite outgrowth.31 32 33 It is thus reasonable to assume that these molecules could be associated with nonpermissive, reactive gliosis at the retinal outer surface and that they could contribute to limitation of the integration between abutting retinas in fragment–laminar pairs and in transplantation of fragmented tissue.
In the laminar–laminar configuration, CRALBP immunostaining was observed not only in the outer surface of the rd1 retinal piece, but also in association with glial elements in the vitreal side of the GFP retinal piece. Previous studies have shown that during development, Müller cell end feet appear to contribute to orienting retinal ganglion cell axons to grow along the inner retinal surface, whereas their dendrites are directed toward the IPL.68 69 Further, as observed previously36 37 and in the present study, neurocan is accumulated in the IPL and at the level of the nerve fiber layer during development, where it is likely to contribute to directing dendritic and axonal outgrowth.32 33 In line with this, neuronal fibers in laminar–laminar pairs ran along the border without crossing it, even when the two overlapping retinas were placed with the inner retinal surfaces against each other.13 Thus, in the laminar–laminar configuration, integration appears to be prevented not only at the level of the outer surface of the rd1 retinal piece but also by the environment in the innermost layers of the GFP piece.
It should be noted also that although both CD44 and neurocan were expressed in the interface of abutting retinas, the distribution of the two was somewhat different. CD44 expression was increased in rd1 intact retinas (compared with normal intact retinas) and no further increase was observed in culture or in transplantation. Further, CD44 was detected in the outer retinal surface of the entire rd1 retina, including overlapping and nonoverlapping areas. In contrast, accumulation of neurocan was not observed in the outer surface of the rd1 retinal piece in the nonoverlapping areas, which suggests that the factors triggering CD44 upregulation are primarily associated with the rd1 retinal degeneration, whereas neurocan accumulation (by increased synthesis and/or decreased degradation) results from the superimposing of the retinal pieces. Neurocan is a secreted and therefore diffusible molecule, so the accumulation observed in laminar–laminar pairs could be of GFP retinal origin, because this tissue was derived from a developmental stage during which, as mentioned earlier, neurocan deposition has been observed in the inner retina. In contrast, accumulation was observed in the interface also in fragment–laminar pairs and between graft and host, suggesting that neurocan may be produced by cells within the rd1 retina. It thus appears that molecular changes are induced not only as a result of glial activation (due to degeneration/manipulation), but also by the unnatural situation of the overlapping retinas, which also influences integration negatively.
Effect of the Disruption of the Glial Boundary on Cell Migration into the Abutting Retina
As previously shown70 and confirmed in the present study, in the few places where integration is observed, not only GFP+ crossing fibers but also GFP+ cells were observed within the abutting rd1 retinal piece. During subretinal transplantation, the outer surface of the host retina may be mechanically damaged, and graft cells may be inadvertently placed within the host retina. Disruption of the outer retinal surface was observed in a few places in the cultured rd1 pieces, which may have occurred during detachment of the retina from the RPE and the handling of the tissue for culture. However, the rd1 and GFP pieces were carefully placed abutting each other, suggesting that the GFP+ cells encountered within the rd1 piece had indeed migrated into the latter.
GFP+ fibers and cells were present within the abutting rd1 retinal piece, coincidentally with areas where thickening of glial radial processes and accumulation of GFAP were more pronounced. There is evidence showing that axonal elongation can occur in the presence of reactive gliosis. Some strongly suggest that glial cell hypertrophy and GFAP upregulation in fact promote axonal growth in the cerebrum and spinal cord.71 72 73 Consistent with this suggestion is the observation that sprouting neurites, both in photoreceptor degeneration and in retinal detachment, are in close association with intensely GFAP-labeled Müller cells.74 75 It conforms also with the observations in previous transplantation studies that graft-derived neuronal fibers can project to the degenerated host retina despite reactive gliosis and that the projections can persist for several months.5 12 14
It is not possible, though, to determine at this point how the two phenomena (neuronal migration and higher glial reactivity) correlate in the system examined in this study: whether increased Müller cell reactivity is induced as a result of a disruption of the OLM, which in turn allows cells to enter the rd1 retina, or whether a break in the OLM allows cells to enter, which locally induces increased glial reactivity. In a recent study,76 integration of subretinally injected dissociated retinal cells was shown to be significantly favored if cells were transplanted to GFAP-vimentin–deficient mice. It is thus possible that the glial boundary at the outer surface of the host GFAP-vimentin–deficient retina is weakened, which in itself allows more cells to cross the interface. If so, it can be speculated that there are at least two different gliotic components involved: one inhibitory, at the retinal surface, and another within the retina itself, which is not necessarily nonpermissive. That also implies that hypertrophy and GFAP expression are not sufficient or even appropriate indicators of a nonpermissive environment.
It should be noted also that many of the migrated GFP+ cells in the present study in the INL of the host rd1 retina expressed specific neuronal cell markers and that a few appeared to extend processes to the corresponding synaptic layers. During normal development, the radial glial cells of the retina (the Müller cells), similar to radial glia in the brain, guide not only neurite extension, but also the migration of neuronal cells across the retina.77 In previous studies, neuronal fibers originating within the retinal graft projected to synaptic layers within the adult host retina.1 2 12 Thus, the adult retina seems to retain the ability to direct not only the extension of the neurites, but also the position of the migrated cells, and radial Müller glial cells (even when activated, or perhaps through activation) may play a role in these processes by acting as scaffolds for the migrating cells, even in the adult. In the current study, however, these processes (crossing of fibers and cells through the interface) took place only after barriers at the interface were disrupted.
|
Conclusions and Considerations |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusions and ConsiderationsReferences |
|---|
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Submitted for publication February 17, 2004; revised July 19, 2004; July 23, 2004.
Disclosure: Y. Zhang, None; A.K. Kardaszewska, None; T. van Veen, None; U. Rauch, None; M.-T.R. Perez, None
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Corresponding author: Maria-Thereza R. Perez, Department of Ophthalmology, Lund University, Klinikgatan 26, BMC, B13, S-221 84, Lund, Sweden; maria_thereza.perez{at}oft.lu.se.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusions and ConsiderationsReferences |
|---|
). (B) The outer surface of the rd1 retinal piece appears disrupted in some places (
) appeared to be intensely GFAP positive. In transplants, the overall GFAP labeling in the host retina was lower in areas away from the graft (not shown).