ArticleMolecular neurobiology2020
The "Use It or Lose It" Dogma in the Retina: Visual Stimulation Promotes Protection Against Retinal Ischemia.
Article in Molecular neurobiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying modifiable factors associated with neuroimaging markers of brain health.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Article
- An ethologically relevant paradigm to assess defensive response to looming visual contrast stimuli.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Visual impairment and retinal and brain neurodegeneration: A population-based study.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
- A novel viewpoint in glaucoma therapeutics: enriched environment.Neural regeneration research · 2022Review
- Enriched environment and visual stimuli protect the retinal pigment epithelium and photoreceptors in a mouse model of non-exudative age-related macular degeneration.Cell death & disease · 2021Article
- Retina stem cells, hopes and obstacles.World journal of stem cells · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Enriched environment (EE) protects the retina from adult rats against ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury; however, how the components of EE contribute to the recovery after retinal ischemic damage remains unclear. We analyzed the contribution of social, cognitive, and visual stimulation on functional and histological alterations induced by I/R. Male Wistar rats were submitted to unilateral ischemia by increasing intraocular pressure to 120 mmHg for 40 min. After ischemia, animals were housed in the following conditions: standard environment (SE), enriched environment (EE), novelty environment (NE), standard social environment (SoE), standard visual environment (SVE), or visual environment (VE). In another set of experiments, rats were submitted to bilateral ischemia and housed in SE or EE. At 2 weeks post-ischemia, rats were subjected to electroretinography and histological analysis. EE (but not SoE or NE) afforded functional and histological protection against unilateral ischemia. EE did not induce protection in animals submitted to bilateral ischemia. VE protected retinal function and histology and increased retinal BDNF levels, while a TrkB receptor antagonist prevented the protective effect of VE against I/R damage. In animals submitted to unilateral ischemia, EE and VE induced an increase in c-fos immunoreactivity in the ipsi and contralateral superior colliculus, whereas in animals submitted to bilateral ischemia, no changes in c-fos-immunoreactivity were observed in either superior colliculus from EE-housed animals. These results support that visual stimulation could be a potent stimulus for driving retinal protection in adult rats through a BDNF/TrkB-dependent mechanism, likely involving the superior colliculus.
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.