June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Immunohistochemical and electrophysiological analysis of rat retinas after subretinal implantation of photovoltaic arrays
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jacob Light
    Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
    Rehab Center of Excellence, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Atlanta, GA
  • James Fransen
    Anatomical Sciences & Neurobiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
  • Alice Adkins
    Rehab Center of Excellence, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Atlanta, GA
  • Gobinda Pangeni
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
  • James Loudin
    Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
    Ophthalmology, The Byers Eye Institute at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
  • Keith Mathieson
    Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
    Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA
  • Daniel Palanker
    Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
    Ophthalmology, The Byers Eye Institute at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
  • Maureen McCall
    Anatomical Sciences & Neurobiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
  • Machelle Pardue
    Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
    Rehab Center of Excellence, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Atlanta, GA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Jacob Light, None; James Fransen, None; Alice Adkins, None; Gobinda Pangeni, None; James Loudin, None; Keith Mathieson, None; Daniel Palanker, None; Maureen McCall, None; Machelle Pardue, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 1034. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jacob Light, James Fransen, Alice Adkins, Gobinda Pangeni, James Loudin, Keith Mathieson, Daniel Palanker, Maureen McCall, Machelle Pardue; Immunohistochemical and electrophysiological analysis of rat retinas after subretinal implantation of photovoltaic arrays. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):1034. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: Network-mediated retinal stimulation by subretinal prostheses may depend on a functional retinal interface. Excessive glial scarring or the loss of inner retinal neurons at the implant site could reduce or eliminate implant-evoked signaling. In this study, immunohistochemical evaluation of the inner retina was compared to electrophysiological recordings of implant-evoked responses in the superior colliculus (SC) to assess signal transmission and retinal health after implantation of photovoltaic arrays (PVAs) in the transgenic S334ter-3 rat model of retinitis pigmentosa.

Methods: Silicon-based PVAs were implanted monocularly into the subretinal space of S334ter-3 rats at 7 or 12 weeks of age. In an intact animal preparation at 18 to 27 weeks post-implantation, arrays were stimulated with IR light (905 nm) at locations on the implant surface and evoked responses were mapped across the dorsal surface of the SC. Immediately after, animals were sacrificed and eyes were enucleated, fixed, and processed for immunohistochemistry. Retinal sections were labeled with primary antibodies against ChAT, PKCα, and GFAP with fluorescent secondary antibodies and visualized with confocal microscopy. The morphology of cells in regions immediately contacting the PVA was compared with areas adjacent to and distant from the implant site.

Results: In most implanted animals, PVA-evoked responses were recorded in the SC. PKCα and ChAT labeling showed preservation of rod bipolar cells and cholinergic amacrine cells, respectively, in and around the implant site. In fully subretinal implantations, amacrine cell lamination patterns were well-maintained in the IPL. Similarly, rod bipolar cells were robustly labeled, and their axon terminal locations were consistent across the retina. GFAP labeling was widespread in all retinal areas, indicating a general glial reaction, but showed little or no additional glial scarring at the implant site.

Conclusions: PVA-evoked responses in the SC indicate that the implanted degenerate retina is still able to pass signals to higher visual structures. That rod bipolar and cholinergic amacrine cells exhibit well-preserved morphology indicates that they should be able to contribute to retinal signal transmission. Glial reactivity is uniform across the retina and is unlikely to interfere with signaling.

Keywords: 688 retina • 554 immunohistochemistry • 508 electrophysiology: non-clinical  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×