advertisement
Abstract #10456 Published in IGR 6-1
Endothelia of Schlemm's canal and trabecular meshwork: Distinct molecular, functional, and anatomic features
Alvarado JA; Betanzos A; Franse Carman L; Chen J; Gonzalez Mariscal LAmerican Journal of Physiology and Cell Physiology 2004; 286: C621-C634
The purpose of this study was to compare human endothelial cells from Schlemm's canal (SCEs) and the trabecular meshwork (TMEs) in terms of ZO-1 isoform expression, hydraulic conductivity (HC) properties, and 'giant' vacuole (GV) formation. The principal study methods were western blot, RT-PCR, immunofluorescence, and perfusion chambers. Blot signals for α+- and α--isoforms were similar in SCEs but less intense for the α+ relative to the α- signal in TMEs. With the anti-α+ antibody used at 1/50 dilution, binding occurred at cell borders of both cell types, but only to SCEs when used at a ≥ 1/200 dilution in vitro and in vivo. SCEs were more resistive than TMEs (HC = 0.66 versus 1.32 μ 1 ·min-1· mmHg-1·cm-2; p < 0.001) when perfused from apex to base. When perfused in the other direction, SCEs were again more resistive (5.23 versus 9.04 μ 1 ·min-1· mmHg-1· cm-2; p < 0.01). GV formation occurred only in SCEs as a function of flow direction, perfusion pressure, and time. The authors conclude that SCEs and TMEs have distinctive phenotypic properties involving their content of ZO-1 isoforms, barrier function, and GV formation.
Dr. J.A. Alvarado, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco, 10 Koret Way, San Francisco, CA 94143-0730, USA
Classification:
2.5.1 Trabecular meshwork (Part of: 2 Anatomical structures in glaucoma > 2.5 Meshwork)
2.5.2 Schlemms canal (Part of: 2 Anatomical structures in glaucoma > 2.5 Meshwork)
3.2 Electron microscopy (Part of: 3 Laboratory methods)
3.3 Immunohistochemistry (Part of: 3 Laboratory methods)
