This study showed no effect on rod or cone function of low-dose CNTF (5 ng/d), even though slight morphologic nuclear changes were observed. A higher CNTF dose (22 ng/d) caused greater changes in nuclear morphology, but caused no reduction in the rod ERG. Our data do not indicate that these changes represent a toxic effect, because functional ERG measures of the rod system over a broad range of intensities were unaffected at either dose.
Nuclear morphology changes indicate potent bioactivity of CNTF, even at the lower dose. This is in keeping with reports of CNTF promoting the survival of magnocellular neurons in the rat superoptic nucleus at 10 ng/mL
17 and rat motorneurons at 1 to 2 ng/mL.
18 In the study by Bok et al.
11 an effect of dose on nuclear phenotype was inferred by comparison of the results for different vectors, promoters, and routes of administration. The controlled release of CNTF from ECT devices allowed us to relate ONL morphologic changes directly to dose (
Table 1 ,
Fig. 7 ) and to demonstrate that these changes have a lower dose threshold than the ERG changes. Although paraffin-embedded tissue is not ideal for the study of cell morphology, the changes in photoreceptor nuclei were apparent
(Fig. 7) , varied consistently with dose and the cell size differences were of the same magnitude as the differences in overall ONL area. In turn, the changes in ONL thickness and area were consistent with an effect of dose, not only across groups, but with given animals, as seen by the fact that the superior retina nearer the site of the implant, but not the inferior retina, showed a significant increase. A gradient effect of CNTF on ONL cell morphology, based on distance from the site of injection, has been reported previously.
11 The effects of CNTF on nuclear chromatin we observed may signal the uncoiling of DNA as part of the process of gene expression.
19
The cone b-wave was reduced at the high dose at dim flash intensities. This effect on the photopic b-wave should be qualified further, since it originates postsynaptically to the cone photoreceptors and may contain contributions from two types of bipolar cells and Müller cells.
20 21 22 CNTF is known to act on multiple intracellular signaling pathways in Müller cells and interneurons, but not in photoreceptors.
23 Trophic factors, including BDNF
24 25 26 27 and others,
28 29 are known to be bioactive on proximal retinal cells.
The CNTF doses that we used in this study afford protection to photoreceptors in the
rcd1 canine model of inherited retinal dystrophy. Major protection was achieved at an ECT dose of 5 to 15 ng/d over the course of 7 weeks, whereas 0.2 to 1 ng/d gave only minimal protection. However, one cannot make an exact comparison between the two studies. The dog eye averages 21 mm in diameter,
30 and is larger than the rabbit eye (18 mm),
31 giving a volume ratio of approximately 1.6. The duration of the implants was much different (25 days vs. 7 weeks). The rabbits were albino, and ocular pigmentation may affect responses to drugs.
14 The rabbit retina is avascular, unlike the dog’s. Perhaps most important, the unhealthy photoreceptors in
rcd1 dogs may respond differently to CNTF than do healthy rods and cones in the rabbit.
Some of the rabbits showed vitreous membrane and engorgement of iris vessels. We subsequently found that this was due to suboptimal wound closure after surgery. Altering the suture technique resolved this problem, and we no longer capture the device titanium loop in the sclera. Employing the technique used for Vitrasert
32 completely alleviated the problem.
CNTF given to these rabbits by ECT for 25 days did not decrease rod function at either 5 or 22 ng/d. In fact, at the lowest stimulus intensities, both the low- and high-dose eyes had higher dark-adapted b-wave amplitudes than did fellow control eyes
(Fig. 3) . In other animals, the activity of cells in the inner retina contributes substantially to the ERG at very low intensities.
33 34 These ERG potentials are generated by K
+ currents flowing through Müller cells.
35 CNTF activates multiple intracellular signaling pathways in these cells, but not in photoreceptors in mouse retina,
23 and thus it is likely that CNTF affects these threshold potentials by its action on either inner retinal neurons or Müller cells. At the highest intensities, both the empty-device and the high-dose scotopic b-wave followed a similar pattern and tended to have slightly smaller amplitudes than their respective control eyes or the low-dose group
(Fig. 2) . In the rodent ERG the plateau in the dark-adapted b-wave V-log I function corresponds to saturation of the underlying PII mechanism, and the subsequent rise in amplitude above this intensity is due, in large part, to contributions from the cone system.
36 Consequently, the smaller amplitude at high flash intensities is probably due to a difference in cone pathway responses. However, the cause of the secondary b-wave amplitude increase has not been demonstrated in the rabbit. In humans
37 and in cats
38 it has been attributed to other causes. Another factor to consider is the light-blocking effect of the device itself. Although this would result in a lower ratio between the two eyes, it would affect all groups equally and thus would not change the statistical results.
Several studies have shown that, although CNTF rescues photoreceptors in retinal degeneration eyes, it produces possible toxic side effects, as indicated by partially suppressed ERG responses and changes in photoreceptor nuclear morphology.
10 11 12 13 Other studies of degenerating retinas have shown an increase in ERG function
5 (Peterson WM, et al.
IOVS 1998;39:ARVO Abstract 5149). In all of these, CNTF was administered by either viral-mediated gene transfer or single bolus injections. The substantial differences between these studies and our mode of CNTF delivery, concentration and the characteristics of the protein delivered make it difficult to compare them directly. However, as in our study, there is an indication that therapeutic dose is lower than that producing these possibly toxic effects. Bok et al.
11 demonstrated photoreceptor rescue in the retina at some distance from the injection site in rAAV-CMV-sDH-CNTF transfection, where CNTF concentrations would be expected to be lower. These areas did not show alteration of nuclear phenotype. Data from a study by Peterson et al. (Peterson WM, et al.
IOVS 1998;39:ARVO Abstract 5149) using an AAV-vectored CNTF construct with a lower affinity for the CNTF receptor and reexamined by Bok et al.,
11 indicated clear retinal rescue without nuclear morphology changes in rhodopsin P23H mutant transgenic rats. The work of Cayouette et al.,
5 which used the less efficient adenovirus vector, showed both rescue and an increase in ERG in
rds mice. The corneal ERG, which integrates responses from the entire retina, is less likely to reveal these regional effects.
We found a significant reduction in the cone ERG at dimmer flash intensities in high-dose CNTF eyes. If this is not simply an effect on ERG generation at the Müller cell or bipolar cell level as suggested earlier, it may be that cone function is more sensitive than rods to CNTF. Others have shown that CNTF can decrease both the scotopic and photopic ERG.
11 However, the overexpression and abnormal intracellular distribution of CNTF in the study by Bok et al.
11 using AAV viral-transferred CNTF DNA make it difficult to interpret this result. If, as suggested by our study, cones are more sensitive to functional suppression, but less sensitive to the therapeutic effects of CNTF, as suggested by others,
4 5 it indicates that the mechanisms of ERG inhibition and cell rescue are separate. However, we do not know whether the site of functional suppression is on the cones or at a postphotoreceptor site, since the photopic ERG b-wave is generated by bipolar cells.
It is difficult to compare the in vivo activity of CNTF in the retinal rescue studies using single injections and viral gene transfer to the doses given by ECT or the biological activity of CNTF in other systems, because the levels were unknown in the previous retinal studies. The dose of CNTF given by intraocular injection to rescue photoreceptors in light damaged rat
39 was 0.5 μg, or nearly 100 times the daily dose given by ECT in the rabbits. A similar dose given locally by single injection (1 μg) enhanced neurogenesis in mouse forebrain and supported the survival (50 ng/100 g)
40 or regrowth (0.1–1 μg)
41 of axotomized retinal ganglion cells. However, because of the short half-life of CNTF in vivo (2.9 minutes in plasma of rats)
42 and the obviously long-term action of CNTF, it is impossible to compare the pharmacokinetics in the two different routes of administration. In vitro studies in which the continuous-exposure dose is regulated, offer the best comparison. CNTF inhibited the differentiation of photoreceptor-like cells in rat pineal at 100 ng/mL,
43 promoted the survival of magnocellular neurons in the rat superoptic nucleus at 10 ng/mL
17 and rat motoneurons at 1 to 2 ng/mL.
18 Of course, the active dose also depends on the type of activity, the concentration and location of receptors, and whether the action is direct or indirect. Indirect action of CNTF on photoreceptors is supported by the report by Wahlin et al.
23 showing activation of intracellular signal pathways in interneurons and Müller cells but not photoreceptors. However, recent studies have also shown the presence of the CNTFα receptor on the outer segments of canine
44 and rat
45 photoreceptors, suggesting at least the possibility of a direct effect on these cells at lower dose than if the action were indirect.
We do not yet know whether either the decrement of ERG amplitude or the morphology will reverse when CNTF is withdrawn. The effect of still longer-term exposure to low, therapeutic doses of CNTF is also an important question. Most ERG studies, in which a decrease in rod function was found, were evaluated at 1 to 6 months of CNTF delivery (Matthew LaVail, personal communication, May 2002), and we cannot rule out the possibility that rabbits would suffer decreased rod function with a longer-term exposure to CNTF. However, in a recent study in rat (Timmers AM, et al. IOVS 2002;43:ARVO Abstract 2732), the rod ERG decreased within 1 to 2 weeks after CNTF delivery (i.e., within the time frame of our rabbit study). In our study, the ERG did not show a tendency toward progressive decrease of rod function between 5 and 25 days. The long-term effect of delivering CNTF to the retina using an ECT device is currently being investigated, since therapy for retinal degenerations will likely be effective only if extended over many months or years.
The authors thank Ian M. MacDonald, MD, for helpful discussions; Pamela O’Rourke, Austra Liepa, Sandy Sherman, Bill Bell, and Mark Lindner for technical assistance; and Catherine Geer for help with the manuscript.