The presence of visual activity in some of our sham controls raises
issues regarding the mechanisms underlying the visually evoked
responses in the SC of transplanted rats. A key question is whether the
presence of the transplant maintains already existing connections in
the host by means of a trophic factor or whether the transplant
restores function by formation of new synapses with the host. The
presence of visually evoked responses in the sham controls suggests
that surgical intervention, via trophic factor release, can maintain
visual responses in the SC. Previous transplantation studies also have
shown that surgery itself effects the rate of photoreceptor
degeneration or loss of visual function.
17 18 This effect
of surgical intervention is probably related to the induction of
trophic factor expression.
39 In addition, both in
vitro
40 and in
vivo
14 16 28 41 42 studies indicate that RPE, Schwann
cell, and dissociated rod photoreceptor transplants provide trophic
factors that delay or arrest the degeneration of host photoreceptors or
of visual function. The differences that we observe in both the
quantitative and qualitative aspects of the visual responses between
the sham controls and rats with retinal transplants suggest that the
presence of functional connections between the transplant and the host
retina or a factor released from the transplant is responsible for the
more robust visual responses. Li and Turner
20 showed that the timing of RPE transplantation into RCS rats is a
critical factor in delaying the normal course of photoreceptor
degeneration. After 38 days of age, RPE transplantation had no effect.
Our RCS rats received fetal retina/RPE transplants at 37 to 69 days of
age. Therefore, it is unlikely that the response in the SC of the
transplanted rats is a simple delay of degeneration in the host related
to the presence of the transplant. In addition, in our transplantation
model this effect is not reflected in host photoreceptor salvage, again
suggesting restoration via an increase in synaptic efficacy of the host
circuitry. Thus, the visual responses in the SC are most likely to
result from functional interactions between the transplant and existing
host circuitry. This hypothesis is supported further by the observation
that cells in the transplant are labeled after injections of a
retrogradely and transynaptically transported pseudorabies
virus
43 into the visually responsive area of the SC of
transplanted rats.
33 The existence of physical connections
between a retinal transplant and a normal host retina also has been
demonstrated in a rabbit model.
44 An alternative
explanation for this result is that the transplants send axons through
the host optic nerve directly to the SC. The former explanation,
however, is more likely for several reasons. First, the visual response
in the SC in our transplanted rats is topographically organized. In
contrast, projections to the SC from either fetal retina transplanted
to the brain
45 or from retinal ganglion cell axons
regenerating through a peripheral nerve graft to the SC are not
topographically organized.
46 47 48 Second, the response
properties that we record in the SC of transplanted rats, while
significantly different from normal rats are considerably more robust
than the responses in the sham controls. Taken together these data
provide stronger support for the hypothesis that visual activity in the
SC is restored as a result of the presence of the retinal transplant
and its connections to the host retina, rather than a simple trophic
effect. Another explanation for the restored response is a release of
excitatory neurotransmitter from the transplant that stimulates cells
in the host extrasynaptically. We believe this scenario is unlikely
because the neurotransmitter reuptake system in the transplant should
remove the transmitter before it can diffuse to the host retina. If the
reuptake system was defective, then transmitter release would produce a
prolonged excitatory response in both the transplant and the host
retina, which should produce excitotoxicity and retinal degeneration.
We have not observed either lengthened visual responses in transplanted
rats or any nonspecific degeneration.