ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Effect of epiretinal electrical stimulation on the glial cells in a rabbit retinal eyecup model.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: We examined how pulse train electrical stimulation of the inner surface of the rabbit retina effected the resident glial cells. We used a rabbit retinal eyecup preparation model, transparent stimulus electrodes, and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The endfeet of Müller glia processes line the inner limiting membrane (ILM). Methods: To examine how epiretinal electrode stimulation affected the Müller glia, we labeled them post stimulation using antibodies against soluble glutamine synthetase (GS). After 5 min 50 Hz pulse train stimulation 30 μm from the surface, the retina was fixed, immunostained for Müller glia, and examined using confocal microscopic reconstruction. Stimulus pulse charge densities between 133-749 μC/cm2/ph were examined. Results: High charge density stimulation (442-749 μC/cm2/ph) caused significant losses in the GS immunofluorescence of the Müller glia endfeet under the electrode. This loss of immunofluorescence was correlated with stimuli causing ILM detachment when measured using OCT. Müller cells show potassium conductances at rest that are blocked by barium ions. Using 30 msec 20 μA stimulus current pulses across the eyecup, the change in transretinal resistance was examined by adding barium to the Ringer. Barium caused little change in the transretinal resistance, suggesting under low charge density stimulus pulse conditions, the Müller cell radial conductance pathway for these stimulus currents was small. To examine how epiretinal electrode stimulation affected the microglia, we used lectin staining 0-4 h post stimulation. After stimulation at high charge densities 749 μC/cm2/ph, the microglia under the electrode appeared rounded, while the local microglia outside the electrode responded to the stimulated retina by process orientation inwards in a ring by 30 min post stimulation. Discussion: Our study of glial cells in a rabbit eyecup model using transparent electrode imaging suggests that epiretinal electrical stimulation at high pulse charge densities, can injure the Müller and microglia cells lining the inner retinal surface in addition to ganglion cells.
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.