ArticleBiomedical engineering online2013
A computer model of lens structure and function predicts experimental changes to steady state properties and circulating currents.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Bidomain Model for Lens Microcirculation.Biophysical journal · 2019Article
- Acute lens opacity induced by different kinds of anesthetic drugs in mice.International journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Endogenous bioelectric currents promote differentiation of the mammalian lens.Journal of cellular physiology · 2018Article
- A dimensionless ordered pull-through model of the mammalian lens epithelium evidences scaling across species and explains the age-dependent changes in cell density in the human lens.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a previous study (Vaghefi et al. 2012) we described a 3D computer model that used finite element modeling to capture the structure and function of the ocular lens. This model accurately predicted the steady state properties of the lens including the circulating ionic and fluid fluxes that are believed to underpin the lens internal microcirculation system. In the absence of a blood supply, this system brings nutrients to the core of the lens and removes waste products faster than would be achieved by passive diffusion alone. Here we test the predictive properties of our model by investigating whether it can accurately mimic the experimentally measured changes to lens steady-state properties induced by either depolarising the lens potential or reducing Na+ pump rate.
methodsTo mimic experimental manipulations reported in the literature, the boundary conditions of the model were progressively altered and the model resolved for each new set of conditions. Depolarisation of lens potential was implemented by increasing the extracellular [K+], while inhibition of the Na+ pump was stimulated by utilising the inherent temperature sensitivity of the pump and changing the temperature at which the model was solved.
resultsOur model correctly predicted that increasing extracellular [K+] depolarizes the lens potential, reducing and then reversing the magnitude of net current densities around the lens. While lowering the temperature reduced Na+ pump activity and caused a reduction in circulating current, it had a minimal effect on the lens potential, a result consistent with published experimental data.
conclusionWe have shown that our model is capable of accurately simulating the effects of two known experimental manipulations on lens steady-state properties. Our results suggest that the model will be a valuable predictive tool to support ongoing studies of lens structure and function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.