...
首页> 外文期刊>Molecular vision >Gene expression signatures in tree shrew sclera during recovery from minus-lens wear and during plus-lens wear
【24h】

Gene expression signatures in tree shrew sclera during recovery from minus-lens wear and during plus-lens wear

机译:从负透镜配戴和正透镜配戴中恢复期间,树sh巩膜中的基因表达特征

获取原文

摘要

Purpose: In juvenile tree shrews that have developed minus lens-induced myopia, if lens treatment is discontinued, refractive recovery (REC) occurs. However, in age-matched juvenile animals, plus-lens wear (PLW) produces little refractive change, although the visual stimulus (myopia) is similar (an “IGNORE” response). Because the sclera controls axial elongation and refractive error, we examined gene expression in the sclera produced by PLW and compared it with the gene expression signature produced by REC to learn whether these similar refractive conditions produce similar, or differing, scleral responses. Methods: Eight groups of tree shrews (n = 7 per group) were examined. Four groups wore a monocular ?5 D lens for 11 days until 35 days of visual experience (DVE). Lens wear was then discontinued, and the animals recovered for 0 h (REC-0), 2 h (REC-2h), 1 day (REC-1d), or 4 days (REC-4d). Starting at 35 DVE, three groups wore a monocular +5 D lens for 2 h (PLW-2h), 1 day (PLW-1d), or 4 days (PLW-4d). A normal group (PLW-0) was examined at 38 DVE to provide baseline measures. Using quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR), we examined scleral mRNA levels in recovering, plus-lens treated, and untreated control eyes for 55 candidate genes whose protein products included signaling molecules, metallopeptidases (MPs) and their inhibitors (tissue inhibitors of metallopeptidases [TIMPs]), and extracellular matrix proteins. Results: No refractive recovery was measured in the REC-2h group. The scleral mRNA expression pattern for recovering versus untreated control eyes after 2 h of recovery was similar to that found for the group (REC-0) that had no recovery time. Many genes in both groups still had downregulated expression in the treated eyes versus the control eyes. The REC-1d group showed little refractive recovery (0.1 ± 0.1 D, mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]), and the mRNA expression pattern was similar to that of the REC-2h group, but had fewer statistically significantly downregulated genes in the recovering eyes. The REC-4d group recovered refractively by 2.6 ± 0.4 D, and displayed a “STOP” gene expression signature of mostly upregulated mRNA expression in the recovering eyes compared with the untreated control eyes. The PLW-0 (normal) group and the PLW-2h group showed no statistically significant differential gene expression. The PLW-1d group showed a small hyperopic shift (0.1 ± 0.2 D). Two genes were differentially expressed: NPR3 was upregulated in the plus lens-wearing eyes, and IGF1 was downregulated. The PLW-4d group showed a similar hyperopic shift (0.3 ± 0.4 D), confirming that the plus lens-induced 5 D of myopia produced little refractive change. In the sclera, there was an IGNORE pattern of general differential upregulation of genes in the treated eyes (22 upregulated, one downregulated) that was distinct from the STOP signature found in recovery. Ten genes were upregulated in the REC-4d group and the PLW-4d group. However, ten other genes were differentially expressed in recovery, but not in plus-lens wear, while 12 genes were differentially expressed in plus-lens wear but not in recovery. Conclusions: One day of recovery is not long enough for the emmetropization mechanism to produce significant gene expression changes in the sclera or refractive recovery. After 4 days, recovery and plus-lens wear produced altered scleral gene expression, but the patterns (“signatures”) differed as to which genes showed altered expression, and whether the gene expression was up- or downregulated. Thus, myopia produced altered scleral mRNA expression in recovery and plus-lens wear, confirming that signals initiated by the retina reached the sclera, but the sclera in the elongated recovering eye responded differently from a normal sclera. This might have occurred because the recovering-eye sclera had remodeled during minus-lens compensation, making the sclera respond differently to the signals initiated by the retina. However, the myopia-produced retinal signals in plus lens-wearing animals also may have differed from those in the recovering eyes by the time the signals passed through the RPE and choroid to reach the sclera.
机译:目的:在幼树sh中发展为负晶状体引起的近视,如果停止晶状体治疗,则会发生屈光恢复(REC)。但是,在年龄匹配的幼年动物中,尽管视觉刺激(近视)相似(“ IGNORE”响应),但加镜片佩戴(PLW)几乎不会产生屈光变化。因为巩膜控制着轴向伸长和屈光不正,所以我们检查了PLW产生的巩膜中的基因表达,并将其与REC产生的基因表达特征进行了比较,以了解这些相似的屈光状况是否产生相似或不同的巩膜反应。方法:检查八组树sh​​(每组n = 7)。四组佩戴单眼5D镜片11天,直到35天的视觉体验(DVE)。然后停止配戴眼镜,使动物恢复0小时(REC-0),2小时(REC-2h),1天(REC-1d)或4天(REC-4d)。从35 DVE开始,三组戴单眼+5 D镜片2小时(PLW-2h),1天(PLW-1d)或4天(PLW-4d)。正常组(PLW-0)在38 DVE接受检查以提供基线测量。我们使用定量实时PCR(qPCR),检查了55个候选基因的恢复,加镜头处理和未处理的对照眼中巩膜mRNA的水平,这些候选基因的蛋白质产物包括信号分子,金属肽酶(MP)及其抑制剂(金属肽酶的组织抑制剂) [TIMPs])和细胞外基质蛋白。结果:REC-2h组未检测到屈光恢复。恢复2小时后,与未治疗的对照眼相比,恢复的巩膜mRNA表达模式与没有恢复时间的组(REC-0)相似。两组中的许多基因在受治疗的眼睛与对照组的眼睛中仍具有下调的表达。 REC-1d组几乎没有屈光恢复(0.1±0.1 D,平均值±平均值[SEM]的标准误差),并且mRNA的表达模式与REC-2h组相似,但统计学上显着下调的基因较少在恢复的眼睛中。 REC-4d组屈光恢复2.6±0.4 D,与未治疗的对照眼相比,在恢复眼中显示了“ STOP”基因表达特征,其中大多数是上调的mRNA表达。 PLW-0(正常)组和PLW-2h组未显示统计学上显着的差异基因表达。 PLW-1d组表现出小的远视移位(0.1±0.2 D)。差异表达了两个基因:戴眼镜的正眼NPR3被上调,而IGF1被下调。 PLW-4d组显示出类似的远视移位(0.3±0.4 D),这证实了由晶状体引起的近视5 D几乎没有屈光变化。在巩膜中,在治疗后的眼睛中存在一个基因普遍差异上调的IGNORE模式(22个上调,一个下调),不同于恢复中发现的STOP信号。 REC-4d组和PLW-4d组中有10个基因上调。然而,其他十个基因在恢复时差异表达,但在正负眼镜佩戴中不表达,而十二个基因在正负眼镜佩戴中差异表达,但在恢复中不表达。结论:一天的恢复时间不足以使全能化机制在巩膜或屈光恢复中产生明显的基因表达变化。 4天后,恢复和加戴隐形眼镜导致巩膜基因表达改变,但是在哪些基因表达改变以及基因表达是上调还是下调方面,模式(“签名”)有所不同。因此,近视恢复时巩膜mRNA的表达发生了改变,并且加上了镜片的磨损,这证实了视网膜引发的信号到达了巩膜,但是在恢复的细长眼中,巩膜的反应与正常巩膜不同。这可能是因为眼球巩膜在负透镜补偿过程中发生了重塑,使巩膜对视网膜发出的信号的反应不同。然而,在正通过配戴眼镜的动物中,近视产生的视网膜信号也可能与正在恢复的眼睛中的视网膜信号有所不同,即信号经过RPE和脉络膜到达巩膜的时间。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号