To study the effects of G2, G2-ACV, and ACV treatment in tissue, we utilized an ex vivo organotypic porcine corneal model. Ex vivo corneal models have previously served as practical, cost-effective methods to study corneal viral infection. Advantages include the ability to study corneal infection in the absence of a host immune system and other nonlocal factors. Organotypic cornea cultures have also previously been employed to study a multitude of corneal diseases, including HSV-1 infection.
15,16 After HSV-1 entry, the immediate early protein ICP0 plays an important role in both lytic and latent infection,
17 and, thus, can provide an alternative mechanism to verify HSV-1 internalization. As shown in the top panel of
Figure 4A, Western blot detection of HSV-1 ICP0 at 24 hours indicated decreased presence of this viral protein in all of the treatment groups. Similar results are seen at 48-hours postinfection (
Fig. 4B, top panel). Densitometry analysis of the protein bands showed that the decreased detection of HSV-1 ICP0 is statistically significant at both 24- and 48-hours postinfection when comparing any of the treatment to the mock-treated groups (
Figs. 4A,
4B, bottom panels). At 24-hours postinfection, it appears that ACV is the most effective, although the difference between this group and G2-ACV is not statistically significant. At 48-hours postinfection, G2-ACV appears to have the greatest antiviral effect, but yet again, the difference between this group and ACV is not statistically significant.
Corresponding immunohistochemistry images of frozen corneal tissue sections show similar increases of HSV-1 viral antigens in the case of the untreated group at both 24 and 48 hours (
Figs. 5A,
5B). In the G2-, G2-ACV–, and ACV-treated groups, there appears to be decreased detection of DAB staining in both the corneal epithelium and stroma. In addition, at 48-hours postinfection, there is marked DAB staining at an area of probable corneal ulceration. There were no significant differences noted by the semiquantitative scoring system among the different treatment groups (
Figs. 5C,
5D).