ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2020
Sheath-Preserving Optic Nerve Transection in Rats to Assess Axon Regeneration and Interventions Targeting the Retinal Ganglion Cell Axon.
Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metabolomic profiling of a neurodegenerative retina following optic nerve transection.Molecular medicine reports · 2023Article
- Optic Nerve Engraftment of Neural Stem Cells.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Retinal ganglion cell (RGC) axons converge at the optic nerve head to convey visual information from the retina to the brain. Pathologies such as glaucoma, trauma, and ischemic optic neuropathies injure RGC axons, disrupt transmission of visual stimuli, and cause vision loss. Animal models simulating RGC axon injury include optic nerve crush and transection paradigms. Each of these models has inherent advantages and disadvantages. An optic nerve crush is generally less severe than a transection and can be used to assay axon regeneration across the lesion site. However, differences in crush force and duration can affect tissue responses, resulting in variable reproducibility and lesion completeness. With optic nerve transection, there is a severe and reproducible injury that completely lesions all axons. However, transecting the optic nerve dramatically alters the blood brain barrier by violating the optic nerve sheath, exposing the optic nerve to the peripheral environment. Moreover, regeneration beyond a transection site cannot be assessed without reapposing the cut nerve ends. Furthermore, distinct degenerative changes and cellular pathways are activated by either a crush or transection injury. The method described here incorporates the advantages of both optic nerve crush and transection models while mitigating the disadvantages. Hydrostatic pressure delivered into the optic nerve by microinjection completely transects the optic nerve while maintaining the integrity of the optic nerve sheath. The transected optic nerve ends are reapposed to allow for axon regeneration assays. A potential limitation of this method is the inability to visualize the complete transection, a potential source of variability. However, visual confirmation that the visible portion of the optic nerve has been transected is indicative of a complete optic nerve transection with 90-95% success. This method could be applied to assess axon regeneration promoting strategies in a transection model or investigate interventions that target the axonal compartments.
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.