Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37487076›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Redefining the human corneal immune compartment using dynamic intravital imaging.

Laura E Downie, Xinyuan Zhang, Mengliang Wu, Senuri Karunaratne, Joon Keit Loi, Kirthana Senthil, Sana Arshad, Kirstie Bertram, Anthony L Cunningham, Nicole Carnt and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Laura E DownieDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1596-2259
Xinyuan ZhangDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.
Mengliang WuDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0142-6623
Senuri KarunaratneDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1418-7278
Joon Keit LoiDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Kirthana SenthilDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3277-6597
Sana ArshadThe Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia.
Kirstie BertramThe Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia.
Anthony L CunninghamThe Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6744-5667
Nicole CarntThe Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia.
Scott N MuellerDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3838-3989
Holly R ChinneryDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4238-4324
The University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The healthy human cornea is a uniquely transparent sensory tissue where immune responses are tightly controlled to preserve vision. The cornea contains immune cells that are widely presumed to be intraepithelial dendritic cells (DCs). Corneal immune cells have diverse cellular morphologies and morphological alterations are used as a marker of inflammation and injury. Based on our imaging of corneal T cells in mice, we hypothesized that many human corneal immune cells commonly defined as DCs are intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). To investigate this, we developed functional in vivo confocal microscopy (Fun-IVCM) to investigate cell dynamics in the human corneal epithelium and stroma. We show that many immune cells resident in the healthy human cornea are T cells. These corneal IELs are characterized by rapid, persistent motility and interact with corneal DCs and sensory nerves. Imaging deeper into the corneal stroma, we show that crawling macrophages and rare motile T cells patrol the tissue. Furthermore, we identify altered immune cell behaviors in response to short-term contact lens wear (acute inflammatory stimulus), as well as in individuals with allergy (chronic inflammatory stimulus) that was modulated by therapeutic intervention. These findings redefine current understanding of immune cell subsets in the human cornea and reveal how resident corneal immune cells respond and adapt to chronic and acute stimuli.

Indexed as

CorneaEpithelium, CornealAfferent PathwaysAnimalsHumansInflammationIntravital MicroscopyMiceconfocalcorneaeyemacrophageT cell

Identifiers

PMID37487076
PMCPMC10400993
OpenAlexW4385191040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.