June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Injury dependent angiogenic responses in the cornea
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Wei Zhang
    Ophthalmology Department, Universitat zu Koln, Cologne, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
  • Karina Hadrian
    Ophthalmology Department, Universitat zu Koln, Cologne, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
  • Claus Cursiefen
    Ophthalmology Department, Universitat zu Koln, Cologne, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
  • Felix Bock
    Ophthalmology Department, Universitat zu Koln, Cologne, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Wei Zhang, None; Karina Hadrian, None; Claus Cursiefen, None; Felix Bock, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  German Research Foundation (DFG) FOR2240 “(Lymph)angiogenesis and Cellular Immunity in Inflammatory Diseases of the Eye”, Cu 47/4-2 (CC), Cu 47/6-1 (CC), Cu 47/9-1 (CC) (www.for2240.de); EU COST BM1302 (FBo, CC; www.biocornea.eu); EU Horizon 2020 ARREST BLINDNESS (CC; www.arrestblindness.eu); Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne, University of Cologne (FBo, CC; www.cmmc-uni-koeln.de/home/)
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 897. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Wei Zhang, Karina Hadrian, Claus Cursiefen, Felix Bock; Injury dependent angiogenic responses in the cornea. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):897.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Pathologic insults like transplant rejection or trauma lead to blindness and to a so called “high-risk situation” with increased rejection rates after subsequent keratoplasty. These insults cause different immunological tissue responses. Aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of different types of corneal injury on hem- and lymphangiogenesis.

Methods : We used 5 types of corneal injury model and naïve corneas as control (n=5 each). The suture model is the intrastromal placement of three 11.0 nylon sutures. A 2 mm filter disc soaked in 1 M NaOH was placed on the central corneal surface for 30s and the eyes were washed with PBS as the alkali burn model. Incision injury was performed in the central cornea with a linear perforating incision with 1 mm length. Corneal grafts were placed into an avascular recipient bed as the normal-risk keratoplasty model (NR-KPL). Corneal grafts were placed into the suture-induced neovascularized recipient as the high-risk keratoplasty model (HR-KPL). C57BL/6 mice were used as donor tissue in KPL and all others were Balb/c mice. 1 week after incision and 2 weeks after all other different injuries, corneas were excised and stained with CD31 and LYVE-1 for the quantification of blood vessels and lymphatic vessels.

Results : HR-KPL and NR-KPL initiated the highest hemangiogenesis (HA), significantly higher than all other groups. Suture placement induced the second most powerful angiogenic response, significantly higher than alkali burn, incision and naïve eyes. Alkali burn evoked the third most powerful HA-response, significantly higher than naïve eyes. The incision model did not induce angiogenesis. Regarding lymphangiogenesis (LA), NR-KPL provoked the highest response, significantly higher than all other groups except HR-KPL. LA in HR-KPL was significantly higher than all other groups except NR-KPL and suture placement. Suture placement and alkali burn had a significantly higher LA compared to incision and naïve eyes. Incision provoked no significant LA compared to naïve corneas. Regarding LYVE-1+ macrophages, only NR-KPL and suture placement showed significantly more infiltration.

Conclusions : Different types of corneal injury cause different types and degrees of neovascularization. In conclusion, different high-risk situations might result in different corneal graft survival rates. Therefore, also the potential clinical treatment of different injuries in the future might need to be customized.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

×
×

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.

×