May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Evidence for Systemic Immunologic Activation Parameters That Distinguish Wet and Dry Forms of ARMD
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S.J. Haidt
    Northern California Retina–Vitreous Associate, Inc, Mountain View, CA
  • R. Gascon
    University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
  • M. McGrath
    University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
  • R. Zhang
    University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
  • W. Stern
    Northern California Retina–Vitreous Associate, Inc, Mountain View, CA
  • M. Wieland
    Northern California Retina–Vitreous Associate, Inc, Mountain View, CA
  • E. Boldrey
    Northern California Retina–Vitreous Associate, Inc, Mountain View, CA
  • J. Palmer
    Northern California Retina–Vitreous Associate, Inc, Mountain View, CA
  • L. Borrillo
    Northern California Retina–Vitreous Associate, Inc, Mountain View, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S.J. Haidt, Pathologica I, C, P; Cellgate I, C, P; R. Gascon, None; M. McGrath, Pathologica F, I, C, P; R. Zhang, None; W. Stern, None; M. Wieland, None; E. Boldrey, None; J. Palmer, None; L. Borrillo, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 200. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S.J. Haidt, R. Gascon, M. McGrath, R. Zhang, W. Stern, M. Wieland, E. Boldrey, J. Palmer, L. Borrillo; Evidence for Systemic Immunologic Activation Parameters That Distinguish Wet and Dry Forms of ARMD . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):200.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose:To determine what immune parameters related to systemic monocytes might distinguish between wet and dry ARMD. Methods:Heparinzed blood was collected from 32 subjects with ARMD (9 dry, 23 wet), and from 10 age–matched control subjects. Phenotypic analysis of peripheral blood monocytes was accomplished by flow cytometry. Plasma levels of macrophage chemo–attractant protein (MCP–1) were determined by Enzyme–linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results:HLA–DR expression levels on CD14 blood monocytes of all ARMD subjects demonstrated a positive correlation to macular drusen severity (p<0.01). Plasma levels of MCP–1 were highest for subjects with dry ARMD, compared to controls (p<0.05). The activation marker CD16 was markedly elevated on CD14 monocytes for subjects with dry ARMD compared to subjects with wet ARMD (p<0.01), and compared to normal controls (p<0.001) Conclusions:Data presented in this study are consistent with a model of ARMD that involves systemic immune activation detectable at both the cellular (monocyte) and cytokine (MCP–1) levels. These immune parameters define immunological differences between the wet and dry forms of disease, and may be useful in disease monitoring and development of effective novel therapies.

Keywords: age-related macular degeneration • inflammation • cytokines/chemokines 
×
×

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.

×