The relatively feeble migratory response of RPE cells to fibronectin and to PDGF was not suspected by us before this study and was not apparent in our examination of the available literature (see
Table 1 ). Quite the reverse is true: The migratory vigor of RPE cells in the development of PVR has been assumed and often emphasized in previous tissue culture studies,
32 experimental animal models of PVR,
6 58 histopathologic studies of ERMs,
35 59 and reviews.
16 18 60 An explanation may be that RPE cells respond far better to ERM-associated chemoattractants other than the two we used in this study. Of course there is a multiplicity of known and potential chemoattraction signals in the environment of a complex retinal detachment
32 55 56 ; however, the two we chose are essential and relevant attractants. We chose PDGF and fibronectin to demonstrate that the difference in migration was not a stimulant-dependent phenomenon produced purely by fibronectin. It should be said that fibronectin is present in some abundance in the ERM tissue,
15 the vitreous,
21 36 (mean concentration, 12.96 ± 6.3 μg/mL [SD], range, 6.4–24.8)
36 and subretinal fluid (mean concentration, 20.9 ± 31.4 μg/mL; range, 0.9–111.1)
61 of patients with PVR. Although PDGF is known to be produced and released locally in the region of ERMs,
31 it has also been detected in the vitreous of patients with PVR (mean, 55.1± 35.45 pg/mL; range, 0–105).
62 On balance, our findings seem to cast some level of doubt on the universally held point of view that RPE, in comparison with other cells, have a pronounced migratory response to key chemoattractant signals generated in the area of a forming ERM and may explain, in part, some findings regarding the role of RPE cells in experimental ERMs after lipopolysaccharide treatment.
63