Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32842792›Full record

ArticleCurrent eye research2021

Strain Specific Responses in a Microbead Rat Model of Experimental Glaucoma.

Karen Eastlake, Hari Jayaram, Joshua Luis, Matthew Hayes, Peng T Khaw, G Astrid Limb

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current eye research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karen Eastlake
Hari Jayaram
Joshua Luis
Matthew Hayes
Peng T Khaw
G Astrid LimbNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields, Eye Hospitaland UCL Institute of Ophthalmology , London, UK.
The London College · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0900002Medical Research Council MR/P01660X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA major challenge in glaucoma research is the lack of reproducible animal models of RGC and optic nerve damage, the characteristic features of this condition. We therefore examined the glaucomatous responses of two different rat strains, the Brown Norway (BN) and Lister Hooded (LH) rats, to high intraocular pressure (IOP) induced by injection of magnetic beads into the anterior chamber.

methodsMagnetic microsphere suspensions (20 µl of 5-20 mg/ml) were injected into the anterior chamber of BN (n = 9) or LH (N = 15) rats. Animals from each strain were divided into three groups, each receiving a different dose of microspheres. IOP was measured over 4 weeks using a rebound tonometer. Retinal ganglion cell (RGC) damage and function were assessed using scotopic electroretinograms (ERGs), retinal flatmounts and optic nerve histology. ANOVA and Student's

resultsA significant elevation in IOP was observed in BN rats receiving injections of 20 mg (37.18 ± 12.28 mmHg) or 10 mg microspheres/ml (36.95 ± 13.63 mmHg) when compared with controls (19.63 ± 4.29 mmHg) (

conclusionsAlthough this model was easily reproducible in BN rats, the phenotype of injury observed in LH rats was very different from that observed in BN animals. We suggest that differences in the glaucomatous response observed in these two strains may be ascribed to anatomical and physiological differences and merits further investigation.

Indexed as

MagnetsMicrospheresAnimalsAnterior ChamberDisease Models, AnimalElectroretinographyGlaucomaInjections, IntraocularIntraocular PressureOptic NerveRatsRats, Inbred BNRetinaelectroretinogramGlaucomaintraocular pressuremicrospheres

Identifiers

PMID32842792
PMCPMC8025805
OpenAlexW3081257699

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.