September 2020
Volume 61, Issue 11
Open Access
Retina  |   September 2020
Complement Activation in the Vitreous of Patients With Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nikhil Mandava
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Vanessa Tirado-Gonzalez
    Asociación Para Evitar La Ceguera, Mexico City, Mexico
  • Matthew D. Geiger
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Jennifer L. Patnaik
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Ashley Frazer-Abel
    Exsersa BioLabs, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Anne M. Lynch
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Naresh Mandava
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Alan G. Palestine
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • V. Michael Holers
    Departments of Immunology and Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Brandie D. Wagner
    Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, University of Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Idaira Sanchez-Santos
    Asociación Para Evitar La Ceguera, Mexico City, Mexico
  • Daniela Meizner
    Asociación Para Evitar La Ceguera, Mexico City, Mexico
  • Hugo Quiroz-Mercado
    Asociación Para Evitar La Ceguera, Mexico City, Mexico
  • Jesse M. Smith
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Correspondence: Jesse M. Smith, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 1675 Aurora Ct. Mail Stop F731, Aurora, CO 80045, USA; jesse.smith@cuanschutz.edu
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2020, Vol.61, 39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.61.11.39
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Nikhil Mandava, Vanessa Tirado-Gonzalez, Matthew D. Geiger, Jennifer L. Patnaik, Ashley Frazer-Abel, Anne M. Lynch, Naresh Mandava, Alan G. Palestine, V. Michael Holers, Brandie D. Wagner, Idaira Sanchez-Santos, Daniela Meizner, Hugo Quiroz-Mercado, Jesse M. Smith; Complement Activation in the Vitreous of Patients With Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(11):39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.61.11.39.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: A growing body of evidence points to complement dysregulation in diabetes. Early studies have indicated the presence of complement components inside the eye in patients with diabetic retinopathy, but these data have been confounded by leakage of proteins from the systemic circulation into the vitreous cavity.

Methods: We took samples of plasma and vitreous from patients with and without proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and measured levels of 16 complement components as well as albumin. We employed a normalized ratio using local and systemic complement and albumin levels to control for vascular leakage into the vitreous cavity.

Results: Before normalizing, we found significantly higher levels of 16 complement components we measured in PDR eyes compared to controls. After normalizing, levels of C4, factor B, and C5 were decreased compared to controls, while C3a and Ba levels were elevated compared to controls. We also found higher ratios of C3a/C3, C5a/C5, and Ba/factor B in PDR eyes compared to controls.

Conclusions: We found evidence of local, intraocular activation of C3, C5, and factor B. The normalized data suggest involvement of the alternative complement pathway. By showing activation of specific complement components in PDR, this study identifies targets for diagnostic and therapeutic potential.

Diabetic retinopathy (DR), a serious ocular complication of diabetes, is present in more than 60% of patients with type 2 diabetes and is the leading cause of permanent visual impairment in the working-age population.1,2 Diabetic retinopathy is classified into two broad categories: nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), which is less severe, and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), which confers the highest risk of severe vision loss.3,4 Proliferative diabetic retinopathy is characterized by retinal neovascularization, the new growth of abnormal, permeable blood vessels resulting from ischemia.5 Established risk factors for PDR include chronic hyperglycemia, increased duration of diabetes, and hypertension, as well as environmental and genetic factors that play contributing roles.1,2,6 
The complement system normally functions as the first line of defense of the innate immune system. It is composed of three separate pathways, the classical, alternative, and mannose-binding lectin, that work in tandem to promote inflammation, opsonize pathogens, attack cell membranes, and enhance host immune response.7 Complement activity is balanced by free-circulating regulators and membrane-bound receptors to prevent damage to host tissues.8 The complement system has been implicated in various diabetic disease states, including nephropathy, as well as ocular diseases such as age-related macular degeneration and uveitis.5,9,10 
Despite the critical role of complement in the systemic inflammatory response, complement dysregulation in diabetic disease remains understudied on both a systemic and ocular level.4,11 Moreover, there is a paucity of information on the role of this dysfunction in patients with PDR.5,1214 Early studies on complement in PDR eyes have indicated the presence of complement components in the vitreous cavity, but these studies have been limited by sample size and confounded by vascular leakage into the eye.15,16 To the best of our knowledge, there are no existing studies comparing relative complement levels in both the plasma and vitreous in diabetic eyes. Furthermore, there are no studies that have controlled for leakage of circulating complement into the vitreous. 
We undertook this study to analyze samples of vitreous and compare complement levels in eyes with PDR to eyes without diabetic retinopathy. Our hypothesis was that by controlling for vascular leakage using paired vitreous and plasma samples, this study would be able to pinpoint specific complement components for diagnostic and therapeutic potential. 
Methods
This case-control study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board and la Comité de Ética en Investigactión de la Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en Mexico, IAP. All samples were collected at the Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en Mexico (APEC) in Mexico City. All research conformed to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from the patients following explanation of the nature and possible consequences of the study. Each patient granted consent for medical chart review, collection of a plasma sample, and collection of a vitreous sample. 
Data coordination, management, and statistical analysis were performed in the Division of Ophthalmic Epidemiology, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine (UCSOM), and sample analysis was performed at Exsera BioLabs, Division of Rheumatology, UCSOM. Surgeries and sample collection were performed between July 2018 and February 2019. 
Cases and Controls
All patients underwent a preoperative dilated fundus examination. Cases were diabetic patients undergoing pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for tractional retinal detachment as a result of PDR. Controls were patients without clinical evidence of DR undergoing PPV for epiretinal membrane or macular hole. 
Exclusion Criteria
Exclusion criteria were as follows: concurrent ocular procedures other than cataract surgery, comorbidities of the retina, NPDR, vitreous hemorrhage (identified before or during surgery), and treatment with laser or anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections within the 3 months preceding surgery. 
Collection and Processing of the EDTA Plasma Sample
Following phlebotomy, the EDTA tube was spun at 3000 revolutions per minute (rpm) in a cooled (4 deg Celsius [°C]) centrifuge for 10 minutes to isolate plasma. Aliquots of plasma were stored at −80°C within 30 minutes of collection. The mean ± SD time from phlebotomy to spin was 8.2 ± 2.8 minutes (range, 3–21 minutes). 
Vitreous Collection
After the eye was prepped and draped in the normal sterile manner, vitrectomy trocars were placed through the pars plana in the standard fashion. The infusion cannula was left clamped to prevent sample dilution. Air was infused into the eye during core vitrectomy to maintain physiologic pressure. During vitrectomy, at least 1 cc of undiluted vitreous was removed using a 3- or 5-cc syringe connected to the aspiration tubing of the vitrectomy probe. All samples were stored at −80°C. 
Complement Factor Analysis
The frozen cryovials were transferred from APEC to Exsera BioLabs, a College of American Pathologists (CAP)/Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory, for analysis. Complement factors C1q, C4, C2, MBL, C4b, C3, factor B, factor D, Properdin, C3a, C3b, Ba, factor H, factor I, C5, and C5a were measured, as well as albumin for normalization. Measurement of complement components and activation fragments was performed by two methods. The Ba and C3a levels were measured by ELISA (Quidel Corp, San Diego, CA, USA). The remaining measurements were performed by multiplex Luminex immunoassays (MilliporeSigma, Burlington, MA, USA). For both methods, Exsera had previously optimized the methods to measure the low-concentration vitreous. For both plasma and vitreous humor, the methods were optimized and validated to the level required for regulated laboratory analysis. All analyses were performed in duplicate with the resulting mean values used for analyses. For the multiplex Luminex data, the mean fluorescent intensity was the raw value, and for the ELISA analysis, the raw value was optical density. Six nonpoint, standard curves were fit with a four-parameter parametric curve fit to calculate the absolute quality in pg/mL, ng/mL, or µg/mL, as appropriate. Three quality controls (QCs) were included in each run, including at least one laboratory-developed and characterized QC. The QCs were monitored for performance. For all testing in the study, the values returned were within the required parameter of assay performance. 
Statistical Analysis
Risk factors in the final analytic data set included the following: age, sex, diabetic status, body mass index (kg/m2), history of tobacco use, and history of comorbid conditions, including treated hypertension, renal disease, and peripheral vascular disease. Descriptive statistics included basic frequencies for categorical variables and means, associated standard deviations, medians, and ranges for continuous variables. Median complement factor levels in the plasma and vitreous were compared between cases and controls. To adjust for overall leakage in the vitreous, the ratio of each complement factor in the vitreous and plasma was adjusted for albumin levels in both the vitreous and plasma, with the following normalized ratio: \(\frac{{Vitreous\ complement\ \div \ Vitreous\ albumin}}{{Plasma\ complement\ \div \ Plasma\ albumin}}\). Relative complement activation ratios were also compared across groups for C3a, Ba, and C5a with the following ratio: Relative complement activation ratio = Complement factor/Parent complement (e.g., C5a/C5). Categorical variables were compared between cases and controls with the chi-square test. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for all comparisons of continuous variables and complement ratios. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess correlations between complement levels and age. Due to the large number of statistical tests, the false discovery rate was used to adjust for multiple comparisons testing for complement comparisons. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant throughout the analysis. SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was used for merging laboratory and epidemiologic data and for statistical analyses. 
Results
Table 1 shows demographic characteristics for cases and controls. Cases were significantly younger than controls. Cases all had type 2 diabetes, whereas 34.5% of controls had diabetes without evidence of retinopathy. None of the other comorbid conditions in Table 1 were significantly different between cases and controls. 
Table 1.
 
Demographic Characteristics and Comorbid Conditions for Patient Cases With Prolific Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR) Versus Controls
Table 1.
 
Demographic Characteristics and Comorbid Conditions for Patient Cases With Prolific Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR) Versus Controls
Analysis of complement levels in both the plasma and vitreous of cases and controls is shown in Table 2. In plasma samples, we found higher levels of C2 (P = 0.048), factor D (P = 0.050), Ba (P < 0.001), and C5 (P = 0.045) in cases compared with controls, whereas controls had higher plasma albumin levels (P = 0.045). In vitreous samples, all complement components and albumin were higher in cases compared to controls (all P < 0.001). Age was not correlated with any of the measured complement factors in the plasma or vitreous for cases or controls. 
Table 2.
 
Complement Levels in Plasma and Vitreous for Cases With PDR Versus Controls
Table 2.
 
Complement Levels in Plasma and Vitreous for Cases With PDR Versus Controls
In Table 3, complement levels observed in the vitreous were adjusted using measured plasma albumin concentrations as described in the Methods. Following this normalization, levels of C4, factor B, and C5 in the vitreous of PDR eyes were decreased compared to controls, while C3a and Ba levels were elevated compared to controls. A subanalysis excluding diabetic controls was performed to compare cases to nondiabetic controls only, and it also showed significantly decreased C4, factor B, and C5 as well as significantly increased C3a and Ba. 
Table 3.
 
Normalized Ratio for Cases With PDR Versus Controls Adjusted for Albumin in the Vitreous and Plasma
Table 3.
 
Normalized Ratio for Cases With PDR Versus Controls Adjusted for Albumin in the Vitreous and Plasma
Table 4 shows relative complement activation ratios in PDR cases versus controls using parent complement levels when applicable. This ratio demonstrates that PDR cases had significantly higher activation ratios of C3a/C3, Ba/B, and C5a/C5 relative to controls. 
Table 4.
 
Relative Activation Ratios for Vitreous Complement in Cases Versus Controls
Table 4.
 
Relative Activation Ratios for Vitreous Complement in Cases Versus Controls
Discussion
In this study, we analyzed vitreous samples from eyes with PDR and from controls without diabetic retinopathy. Using a normalized ratio to correct for vascular leakage, we identified local activation of complement factors C3a, C5a, and Ba, as well as local consumption of C4, C5, and factor B. These finding suggest activation of the alternative complement pathway in PDR. 
In recent years, a growing body of literature has focused on complement inside the eye, primarily in macular degeneration.12 Despite this attention, only a few studies have examined the role of complement in one of the most common causes of blindness—diabetic retinopathy. Muramatsu et al.15 found significantly elevated levels of C5a in the vitreous of PDR eyes, while Manoharan et al.16 found elevated levels of factor D and C9. Cadaveric studies in diabetic eyes have shown higher levels of C3 and factor B, as well as lower levels of the complement inhibitors CD55 and CD59 in diabetic eyes.17,18 These studies provided early evidence of complement dysregulation in PDR, but they were severely limited by small sample sizes and, more important, interference due to vascular leakage into the eye. 
It is well known that patients with PDR, and those with diabetes in general, have higher serum levels of various complement components.1922 These elevated levels, however, are no more specific to diabetic retinopathy than they are to other systemic complications of diabetes. Because vascular leakage is a defining feature of PDR, these circulating complement components gain entry into the eye. A simple measurement of vitreous complement levels is therefore insufficient to determine whether complement inside the eye is locally produced or if it entered the vitreous cavity though leaking vasculature or by way of vitreous hemorrhage. Any sampling of vitreous complement in PDR eyes is likely to be confounded by leakage from the systemic circulation. 
In collecting vitreous samples, we sought to solve this problem in two ways. First, we excluded patients with vitreous hemorrhage. Second, we corrected for vascular leakage using a normalized ratio: \(\frac{{Vitreous\ complement\ \div \ Vitreous\ albumin}}{{Plasma\ complement\ \div \ Plasma\ albumin}}\). This ratio is a simple adaptation of the Goldmann-Witmer coefficient that has long been used to differentiate between local and systemic production of antibodies found in intraocular fluid.23 Because albumin is normally only present in the vitreous in low concentrations, higher levels indicate increased retinal vascular leakage. Using the ratio, higher levels of vitreous albumin would result in a lower corrected value of complement inside the eye. Before employing the albumin-normalized ratio, we found significant elevations in PDR eyes of every complement component we tested. After normalizing, we found that the ratios of activated fragments to their parent complement components (i.e., C5a/C5) were significantly higher in PDR eyes versus controls for C3a, C5a, and Ba. These normalized data, corrected for vascular leakage, clearly indicate local complement activation independent of systemic circulating complement levels. Taken together, the data suggest activation of the alternative pathway. 
While these results clearly indicate complement activation in PDR eyes, the ultimate role of complement in the pathogenesis of PDR is less clear. Our data do not indicate whether complement plays a causative role or whether it occurs as a reaction to tissue damage from other mechanisms. Similarly, complement may simply be a by-product of neovascularization rather than the cause of it. Because the half-life of C3a is approximately 30 minutes, the detection of local C3a in our data indicates ongoing complement activation, but it does not indicate past activity, a fact that further limits our ability to directly attribute previous vascular damage to complement activity.24 
We are therefore left to hypothesize about the role of complement inside the diabetic eye. By understanding the role that complement plays in causing vascular damage in other organs, it is possible to infer a similar effect inside the eye. In the glomerulus, for instance, complement has been shown to directly mediate vasculopathy via formation of the membrane attack complex (MAC).25 Glycation of CD59, a MAC inhibitor, results in unchecked MAC activity and is thought to be a causative factor in complement-mediated vascular injury in the glomerular capillaries.26 It is plausible that a similar MAC-mediated mechanism underlies damage to retinal vasculature in diabetes, leading to ischemia and proliferative disease. Indeed, deposition of C5b-9, the components comprising the MAC, has been observed within the vessel walls of cadaveric diabetic eyes, although it has not yet been shown to result in cell death.27 Despite the suggestive evidence, further study is needed to determine the actual function of complement in PDR. 
This study has limitations. First, the sample size, while significantly larger than any previously published data, still comes from a patient population at a single institution. The results therefore should be seen as a preliminary step toward a greater understanding of the subject. Second, while we looked specifically at samples from eyes with PDR, there is substantial clinical heterogeneity within any PDR population: some eyes may have mild neovascularization, while others may have extensive tractional retinal detachments or rubeosis. Beyond excluding vitreous hemorrhage, we did not differentiate between mild and severe PDR in our patients. Third, we included diabetic patients in our control group. While a subanalysis of the nondiabetic control eyes showed decreased C4, factor B, and C5 as well as significantly increased C3a and Ba—the same as the combined control group—it is possible that subclinical, or even nonvascular, diabetic damage occurred in the control eyes and may have altered measured complement levels. Finally, our results do not indicate whether complement activation is a cause or an effect of diabetic retinopathy and angiogenesis, and additional research is required to determine causality. Despite these limitations, this study is distinguished by a comparatively large data set that has been controlled for vascular leakage. Future study should be directed toward targeting of specific complement components for therapeutic potential. 
In this study, we identified local activation of complement in the vitreous of patients with PDR. Using normalized ratios, we demonstrated that this local activation is ongoing and separate from systemic complement activity. 
Acknowledgments
Some of the data in this manuscript were presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) in Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 2, 2019. 
Supported by a Challenge Grant to the University of Colorado Department of Ophthalmology from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc. 
Disclosure: N. Mandava, None; V. Tirado-Gonzalez, None; M.D. Geiger, None; J.L. Patnaik, None; A. Frazer-Abel, None; A.M. Lynch, None; N. Mandava, None; A.G. Palestine, None; V.M. Holers, None; B.D. Wagner, None; I. Sanchez-Santos, None; D. Meizner, None; H. Quiroz-Mercado, None; J.M. Smith, None 
References
Fong DS, Aiello L, Gardner TW, et al. Retinopathy in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004; 27(suppl 1): S84–S87. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Varma R, Macias GL, Torres M, Klein R, Peña FY, Azen SP. Biologic risk factors associated with diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114: 1332–1340. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Aiello LP . Angiogenic pathways in diabetic retinopathy. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 839–841. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tarr JM, Kaul K, Wolanska K, Kohner EM, Chibber R. Retinopathy in diabetes. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012; 771: 88–106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jha P, Bora PS, Bora NS. The role of complement system in ocular diseases including uveitis and macular degeneration. Mol Immunol. 2007; 44: 3901–3908. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Solomon SD, Chew E, Duh EJ, et al Diabetic retinopathy: a position statement by the American Diabetes Association [published correction appears in Diabetes Care. 2017;40:809]. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40: 412–418. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Holers VM . Complement and its receptors: new insights into human disease. Annu Rev Immunol. 2014; 32: 433–459. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zipfel PF, Skerka C. Complement regulators and inhibitory proteins. Nat Rev Immunol. 2009; 9: 729. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sircar M, Rosales IA, Selig MK, et al. Complement 7 is up-regulated in human early diabetic kidney disease. Am J Pathol. 2018; 188: 2147–2154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lynch AM, Mandava N, Patnaik JL, et al. Systemic activation of the complement system in patients with advanced age-related macular degeneration [published online ahead of print June 17, 2019]. Eur J Ophthalmol.
Rubsam A, Parikh S, Fort PE. Role of inflammation in diabetic retinopathy. Int J Mol Sci. 2018; 19: 942. [CrossRef]
Clark SJ, Bishop PN. The eye as a complement dysregulation hotspot. Semin Immunopathol. 2018; 40: 65–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Adamis AP, Berman AJ. Immunological mechanisms in the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy. Semin Immunopathol. 2008; 30: 65–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chrzanowska M, Modrzejewska A, Modrzejewska M. New insight into the role of the complement in the most common types of retinopathy-current literature review. Int J Ophthalmol. 2018; 11: 1856–1864. [PubMed]
Muramatsu D, Wakabayashi Y, Usui Y, Okunuki Y, Kezuka T, Goto H. Correlation of complement fragment C5a with inflammatory cytokines in the vitreous of patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013; 251: 15–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Manoharan N, Patnaik JL, Olson JL. Increased complement levels in human vitreous aspirates of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and retinal detachment eyes. Retina. 2018; 39: 2212–2218. [CrossRef]
Garcia-Ramirez M, Canals F, Hernandez C, et al. Proteomic analysis of human vitreous fluid by fluorescence-based difference gel electrophoresis (DIGE): a new strategy for identifying potential candidates in the pathogenesis of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Diabetologia. 2007; 50: 1294–1303. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gerl VB, Bohl J, Pitz S, Stoffelns B, Pfeiffer N, Bhakdi S. Extensive deposits of complement C3d and C5b-9 in the choriocapillaris of eyes of patients with diabetic retinopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002; 43: 1104–1108. [PubMed]
Hess K, Alzahrani SH, Price JF, et al. Hypofibrinolysis in type 2 diabetes: the role of the inflammatory pathway and complement C3. Diabetologia. 2014; 57: 1737–1741. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mellbin LG, Bjerre M, Thiel S, Hansen TK. Complement activation and prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes and myocardial infarction: a report from the DIGAMI 2 trial. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35: 911–917. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hansen TK, Thiel S, Knudsen ST, et al. Elevated levels of mannan-binding lectin in patients with type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003; 88: 4857–4861. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Geng P, Ding Y, Qiu L, Lu Y. Serum mannose-binding lectin is a strong biomarker of diabetic retinopathy in Chinese patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38: 868–875. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Goldmann H, Witmer R. Antibodies in the aqueous humor. Ophthalmologica. 1954; 127: 323–330. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Norda R, Schott U, Berseus O, et al. Complement activation products in liquid stored plasma and C3a kinetics after transfusion of autologous plasma. Vox Sang. 2012; 102: 125–133. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Flyvbjerg A. The role of the complement system in diabetic nephropathy. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2017; 13: 311–318. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Qin X, Goldfine A, Krumrei N, et al. Glycation inactivation of the complement regulatory protein CD59: a possible role in the pathogenesis of the vascular complications of human diabetes. Diabetes. 2004; 53: 2653–2661. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhang J, Gerhardinger C, Lorenzi M. Early complement activation and decreased levels of glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored complement inhibitors in human and experimental diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes. 2002; 51: 3499–3504. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1.
 
Demographic Characteristics and Comorbid Conditions for Patient Cases With Prolific Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR) Versus Controls
Table 1.
 
Demographic Characteristics and Comorbid Conditions for Patient Cases With Prolific Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR) Versus Controls
Table 2.
 
Complement Levels in Plasma and Vitreous for Cases With PDR Versus Controls
Table 2.
 
Complement Levels in Plasma and Vitreous for Cases With PDR Versus Controls
Table 3.
 
Normalized Ratio for Cases With PDR Versus Controls Adjusted for Albumin in the Vitreous and Plasma
Table 3.
 
Normalized Ratio for Cases With PDR Versus Controls Adjusted for Albumin in the Vitreous and Plasma
Table 4.
 
Relative Activation Ratios for Vitreous Complement in Cases Versus Controls
Table 4.
 
Relative Activation Ratios for Vitreous Complement in Cases Versus Controls
×
×

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.

×