After perfusion, labeling, and cutting of the anterior segments into wedges of HF or LF regions, tissues were placed in PBS and shipped overnight on ice to the AFM lab. Within less than 24 hours of perfusion, the TMs were dissected from the tissue wedges and mounted with the JCT/SCE inner wall facing up and the outer TM beams facing down. In brief, from wedges of anterior segments or corneoscleral rims, we remove any iridal remnants with a 22.5° stab blade coming in horizontally. Then, using a jeweler's forceps, we gently lifted the TM out, maintaining careful attention to orientation. This method was reported in detail by Tamm et al.
32 and described initially by our group,
20 in which the TM tissue dissection method was described in careful detail. More specifically, the dissected TM was maintained carefully so that the SC inner wall side was facing up to the AFM cantilever with the outer beam portion facing down. In numerous parallel TM samples, we used histologic staining of the tissues before and after the isolation process (see Fig. 1 of Last et al.
20) to verify the sample orientation. This method also has been modified from the original sample mounting method
20 and includes a soft-clamping immobilizing retainer of tissue (SCIRT) retainer system.
33 Briefly, the sample was placed on a thin coating of Sylgard 527 (a dielectric silicone polymer), upon which a SCIRT is placed. The TM is accessible through a window within the SCIRT with the JCT/SCE side of the mounted TM tissue on top for the AFM measurements. As a result, the sample does not come in contact with any glue material, but is adhered firmly to the silicone polymer. Elastic moduli of the JCT/SCE face of the TM tissues were determined by AFM as described previously.
20,33,34 Elastic moduli measurements of TM tissues in this study generally were stiffer than those previously measured on cultured SC cells.
35 However, the cantilever tip shape, as well as the location along the cell where the measurement is made (nucleus versus cytoplasm) have been shown to affect AFM measurements.
36 In addition, recent studies of SCE biomechanics by AFM in situ showed that the SCE cells themselves are very soft (0.34–0.36 kPa) compared to those grown on glass, although they did not know whether they were measuring HF or LF regions; thus, the SCE cells would have minimal impact on our measurements.
36,37 Briefly, force versus indentation curves were obtained using the MFP-3D Bio AFM (Asylum Research, Santa Barbara, CA, USA) coupled with a Zeiss Axio Observer inverted microscope (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Thornwood, NY, USA). Silicon nitride cantilevers (PNP-TR-50, nominal spring constant [κ] of 0.32 N/m and half angle opening of 35°; NanoAndMore, Lady's Island, SC) were modified by incorporation of a borosilicate bead (nominal radius,
R = 5 μm; Thermo Fisher Scientific) at the free end of the cantilever; These colloidal probes were calibrated for deflection inverse optical lever sensitivity (Defl InvOLS) by indentation in HBSS on glass and then the actual spring constant of the cantilever was determined by the thermal method using the Asylum Research software. All samples were equilibrated in Hank's balanced salt solution (HBSS) for 30 minutes before obtaining measurements. For all samples, five force curves were obtained from at least seven different positions. Elastic modulus of each sample was obtained by fitting indentation force versus indentation depth of the sample with an overlay of the theoretical force based on the geometry-appropriate Hertz model for spherical tip as described previously.
38 All biologic samples were assumed as incompressible materials because of their high water content and, therefore, the Poisson's ratio was assumed to be 0.5.
39–43 Determining the accurate indentation depth across which the biologic sample behaves as a linear-elastic material is difficult from the F versus δ curves. Thus, the elastic regime of a viscoelastic tissue, where E is constant over a restricted indentation depth, was determined from a plot of E versus δ values.
44 Six biologic replicates from six different eyes were used for each region and condition. Elastic moduli were averaged for each condition and region. Since not all eyes were paired, they were treated as individual replicates and not considered as paired in the statistical analysis. The statistical test for stiffness differences was 1-way ANOVA with Sidak's multiple comparison correction computed using GraphPad Prism software (La Jolla, CA, USA).
P values are indicated in the Figure legend for each comparison.