Support for the first hypothesis comes from the observation that in most transplant-recipient S334-ter line-3 and RCS
36 retinas, as well as in retinas with aggregate transplants,
28 30 61 the host and transplant fuse and develop an intermediate plexiform layer. In addition, processes appear to arise from cells in the transplant and cross this layer, where contacts may form (Aramant RB, Seiler MJ, Woch G, ARVO Abstract 528, 2000).
62 63 In support of the trophic factor hypothesis is the observation that transplantation and/or coculture of normal retinas with dystrophic retinas provides widespread preservation of cone photoreceptors, which would ordinarily undergo cell death.
20 43 44 In addition, the fact that both aggregates of photoreceptors and intact retinal sheets induce visual activity in dystrophic host retinas also can be interpreted as evidence in favor of a trophic influence, although different synaptic connections could occur between transplant and host in these two models. Arguing against the trophic hypothesis is that many of our transplants with intact morphology did not induce recovery of visual activity. In addition, our qualitative morphologic observations and those of others
30 36 provide no evidence of transplant-induced preservation of photoreceptor nuclei in the time frame used in the current study, although it is clear that the presence of transplanted normal photoreceptors or application of trophic factors arrest or delay cone photoreceptor degeneration in the short run.
20 42 43 44 Further, we (in both transgenic and RCS rats with transplants), and Radner et al.
30 observed only a localized recovery and preservation of visual activity induced by the transplant. This observation is more consistent with a mechanism that provides a local influence, rather than a transplant-induced trophic influence, which has been shown to be widespread.
20 43 44 One possibility that our data cannot address is that the transplant provides an initial short-term protective effect that is widespread and that the area shrinks with increasing postsurgical times. If this were the case, the area of localized visual activity would be driven by a small region containing the remaining recovered host cones, which may have been too small to detect with our qualitative observations. To help to discriminate between these hypotheses, both characterizations of visual activity over a wider range of postsurgical ages are necessary required, as are quantitative assessments of photoreceptor nuclei in these models and over the same range of postsurgical times. Finally, it is possible that both mechanisms work in concert to induce the recovery of visual activity. Regardless of the mechanism, our data along with those of Radner et al.
30 and Mohand-Said et al.
20 strongly suggest that retinal transplants are responsible for both recovery and/or preservation of photoreceptor nuclei and visual function.