Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23687436›Full record

ArticleMolecular vision2013

Subretinal electrical stimulation preserves inner retinal function in RCS rat retina.

Vincent T Ciavatta, Julie A Mocko, Moon K Kim, Machelle T Pardue

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular vision, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Analysis of Electric Field Stimulation in Blue Light Stressed 661W Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Neuroprotective strategies for retinal disease.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2018
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Integration of Perforated Subretinal Prostheses With Retinal Tissue.Translational vision science & technology · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vincent T CiavattaRehab R&D Center, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia 30033, USA. vciavat@emory.edu
Julie A Mocko
Moon K Kim
Machelle T Pardue
Atlanta VA Medical Center · US

Funding

P30-Core Grant for Vision Research Core CP30EY006360 · NEI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI BOATRIGHT, JEFFREY H · 1986 to 2025
$15.3M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY006360NEI NIH HHS P30EY006360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePreviously, studies showed that subretinal electrical stimulation (SES) from a microphotodiode array (MPA) preserves electroretinography (ERG) b-wave amplitude and regional retinal structure in the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) rat and simultaneously upregulates Fgf2 expression. This preservation appears to be associated with the increased current produced when the MPA is exposed to ERG test flashes, as weekly ERG testing produces greater neuroprotection than biweekly or no testing. Using an infrared source to stimulate the MPA while avoiding potential confounding effects from exposing the RCS retina to high luminance white light, this study examined whether neuroprotective effects from SES increased with subretinal current in a dose-dependent manner.

methodsRCS rats (n=49) underwent subretinal implantation surgery at P21 with MPA devices in one randomly selected eye, and the other eye served as the control. Naïve RCS rats (n=25) were also studied. To increase SES current levels, implanted eyes were exposed to 15 min per session of flashing infrared light (IR) of defined intensity, frequency, and duty cycle. Rats were divided into four SES groups that received ERG testing only (MPA only), about 450 µA/cm2 once per week (Low 1X), about 450 µA/cm2 three times per week (Low 3X), and about 1350 µA/cm2 once per week (High 1X). One eye of the control animals was randomly chosen for IR exposure. All animals were followed for 4 weeks with weekly binocular ERGs. A subset of the eyes was used to measure retina Fgf2 expression with real-time reverse-transcription PCR.

resultsEyes receiving SES showed significant preservation of b-wave amplitude, a- and b-wave implicit times, oscillatory potential amplitudes, and post-receptoral parameters (Vmax and log σ) compared to untreated eyes. All SES-treated eyes had similar preservation, regardless of increased SES from IR light exposure. SES-treated eyes tended to have greater retinal Fgf2 expression than untreated eyes, but Fgf2 expression did not increase with IR light.

conclusionsThe larger post-receptoral responses (Vmax), greater post-receptoral sensitivity (logσ), and larger oscillatory potentials suggest SES-treated eyes maintained better inner retinal function than the opposite, untreated eyes. This suggests that in addition to preserving photoreceptors in RCS rats, SES may also promote more robust signal transmission through the retinal network compared to the control eyes. These studies suggest that the protective effects of SES on RCS retinal function cannot be improved with additional subretinal current induction from the MPA, or the charge injection provided by ERG Ganzfeld flashes was not adequately mimicked by the flashing IR light used in this study.

Indexed as

AnimalsElectric StimulationElectroretinographyFibroblast Growth Factor 2Gene Expression RegulationProstheses and ImplantsProsthesis ImplantationRatsRetinaRNA, MessengerTime FactorsFibroblast Growth Factor 2RNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID23687436
PMCPMC3654858
OpenAlexW1551140393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.