Representative retinal sections from the superior retinas from 7-week-old RCS rats that had 100 μA of TES or had sham stimulation are shown in
Figure 1 . The number of rows of nuclei in the ONL layer was four or five in the retina receiving TES
(Fig. 1A)and two or three in the retina with sham stimulation
(Fig. 1B) .
Quantitative analyses showed that the ONL in the TES-treated eyes was significantly thicker than in the sham-stimulated and control eyes at 7 weeks of age
(Fig. 2A) . The mean thickness of ONL in control retinas of 7-week-old RCS rats was 9.8 ± 1.0 μm (mean ± SEM,
n = 6) which was not significantly different from that in the sham-stimulated eyes at 10.9 ± 0.6 μm (
n = 6). The mean ONL thickness in the retinas treated with TES at a current intensity of 50 μA was 13.7 ± 0.4 μm (
n = 6), whereas that with a current intensity of 100 μA was 23.3 ± 1.8 μm (
n = 6). The ONL with 50 μA was not significantly thicker than that of sham-stimulated eyes, but with 100 μA, the ONL was significantly thicker than that of the sham-stimulated eyes and that of the 50 μA (
P < 0.001 versus sham,
P < 0.001 versus 50 μA;
Fig. 2A ). Thus, TES at 100 μA was significantly effective on the survival of photoreceptors but TES at 50 μA was not significantly effective in RCS rats at 7 weeks of age; therefore, we used TES at 100 μA in the following experiment.
To determine whether the differences in the thickness of the ONL was localized or widespread across the retina, the mean thickness of the ONL was determined at 18 points along the superior–inferior plane of the eye in the three groups of RCS rats. The mean ONL thickness at every point in the superior and inferior hemispheres of the retinas treated with 100 μA TES was significantly thicker than that treated with sham stimulation or in the control retinas (one-way ANOVA,
P < 0.001;
Fig. 2B ). Thus, TES delayed the degeneration of the photoreceptors across the retina.
To determine whether the TES affected other layers of the retina, we measured the thickness of the INL. The mean thickness of the INL was: control = 29.0 ± 0.8 μm; sham = 28.1 ± 1.1 μm; 50 μA TES = 26.9 ± 0.4 μm; and 100 μA TES = 30.1 ± 0.8 μm (mean ± SEM,
n = 6 each;
Fig. 2C ). None of these differences was significant.