June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
Comparative stromal cell therapy for corneal scarring with corneal stromal stem cells versus keratocytes
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Vishal Jhanji
    Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Mithun Santra
    Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Gary Hin-Fai Yam
    Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Vishal Jhanji None; Mithun Santra None; Gary Hin-Fai Yam None
  • Footnotes
    Support  This work was supported by the Eye Bank Association of America
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 820. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Vishal Jhanji, Mithun Santra, Gary Hin-Fai Yam; Comparative stromal cell therapy for corneal scarring with corneal stromal stem cells versus keratocytes. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):820.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Preclinical studies have shown success using cultivated human corneal stromal keratocytes (CSK) and their progenitors (corneal stromal stem cells [CSSC]) to prevent corneal scarring and regenerate transparent corneal stroma. However, there is no study comparing the treatment efficacy of CSK versus CSSC. This work investigated if both cell types have comparable corneal regenerative effects in a mouse corneal injury model.

Methods : Human CSSC and CSK were isolated from same donor corneas (n=3) and cultured following reported protocols. Cell phenotypes were characterized by marker expression, doubling time and collagen deposition. In a mouse model of anterior stromal injury created by Algerbrush burring, CSSC were topically applied in fibrin gel immediately after injury whereas CSK were intrastromally injected after epithelial healing. Corneas were examined weekly with anterior segment optical coherent tomography and harvested at 14 days post-treatment for scar analysis, fibrosis gene expression (Col3a1, aSMA, fibronectin [FN], and tenascin C [TNC])by qPCR and immunostaining.

Results : Cultivated human CSSC were proliferative and expressed stem cell markers (Pax6, ABCG2, nestin and CXCR4), and lumican but negative for keratocan and ALDH3A1. Growth-arrested CSK became quiescence and expressed ALDH3A1, keratocan, and lumican. Using ELISA, CSSC produced significantly less pro-collagen I than quiescent CSK, and both had minimal collagen III expression when compared to stromal fibroblasts. When applied on mouse corneal wounds, both cell types reduced corneal scarring in a dosage-dependent manner and downregulated inflammatory (iNOS, MCP1) and fibrosis markers (Col3a1, aSMA, FN, and TNC), when compared to wound controls. Comparing between CSSC and CSK, fibrosis gene expression was generally lower in CSK group than those treated with CSSC, particularly significant for MCP1, FN and TNC (P<0.05, Mann-Whitney U test). The lowest effective dosage for CSSC was 50x103 cells and CSK was 20x103 cells on mouse corneas.

Conclusions : Treatments with CSSC and CSK were effective to reduce corneal fibrosis and scarring. CSK injection showed a greater scar inhibition than topical CSSC. This could be due to a better retention of functional CSK inside stroma whereas CSSC could be partly removed by blinking. In addtion, batch-to-batch variability and differentiation of CSSC could affect the treatment outcomes.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

×
×

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.

×