1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Silicone oil-induced ocular hypertension and glaucomatous neurodegeneration in mouse

  1. Jie Zhang
  2. Liang Li
  3. Haoliang Huang
  4. Fang Fang
  5. Hannah C Webber
  6. Pei Zhuang
  7. Liang Liu
  8. Roopa Dalal
  9. Peter H Tang
  10. Vinit B Mahajan
  11. Yang Sun
  12. Shaohua Li
  13. Mingchang Zhang
  14. Jeffrey L Goldberg
  15. Yang Hu  Is a corresponding author
  1. Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
  2. Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China
Tools and Resources
  • Cited 12
  • Views 2,569
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e45881 doi: 10.7554/eLife.45881

Abstract

Understanding the molecular mechanism of glaucoma and development of neuroprotectants are significantly hindered by the lack of a reliable animal model that accurately recapitulates human glaucoma. Here we sought to develop a mouse model for the secondary glaucoma that is often observed in humans after silicone oil (SO) blocks the pupil or migrates into the anterior chamber following vitreoretinal surgery. We observed significant intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation after intracameral injection of SO, and that SO removal allows IOP to return quickly to normal. This simple, inducible and reversible mouse ocular hypertension model shows dynamic changes of visual function that correlate with progressive RGC loss and axon degeneration. It may be applicable with only minor modifications to a range of animal species in which it will generate stable, robust IOP elevation and significant neurodegeneration that will facilitate selection of neuroprotectants and investigating the pathogenesis of ocular hypertension-induced glaucoma.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for all the figures.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jie Zhang

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Liang Li

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Haoliang Huang

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fang Fang

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Hannah C Webber

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Pei Zhuang

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Liang Liu

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Roopa Dalal

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Peter H Tang

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Vinit B Mahajan

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Yang Sun

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Shaohua Li

    Department of Ophthalmology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Mingchang Zhang

    Department of Ophthalmology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Jeffrey L Goldberg

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1390-7360
  15. Yang Hu

    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, United States
    For correspondence
    huyang@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7980-1649

Funding

National Eye Institute (EY024932)

  • Yang Hu

National Eye Institute (EY023295)

  • Yang Hu

National Eye Institute (EY028106)

  • Yang Hu

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#32093) of the Stanford University.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jeremy Nathans, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: February 8, 2019
  2. Accepted: May 14, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 15, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 23, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Zhang et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,569
    Page views
  • 330
    Downloads
  • 12
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kristen Lee, Chris Q Doe
    Research Advance Updated

    Individual neurons can undergo drastic structural changes, known as neuronal remodeling or structural plasticity. One example of this is in response to hormones, such as during puberty in mammals or metamorphosis in insects. However, in each of these examples, it remains unclear whether the remodeled neuron resumes prior patterns of connectivity, and if so, whether the persistent circuits drive similar behaviors. Here, we utilize a well-characterized neural circuit in the Drosophila larva: the moonwalker descending neuron (MDN) circuit. We previously showed that larval MDN induces backward crawling, and synapses onto the Pair1 interneuron to inhibit forward crawling (Carreira-Rosario et al., 2018). MDN is remodeled during metamorphosis and regulates backward walking in the adult fly. We investigated whether Pair1 is remodeled during metamorphosis and functions within the MDN circuit during adulthood. We assayed morphology and molecular markers to demonstrate that Pair1 is remodeled during metamorphosis and persists in the adult fly. MDN-Pair1 connectivity is lost during early pupal stages, when both neurons are severely pruned back, but connectivity is re-established at mid-pupal stages and persist into the adult. In the adult, optogenetic activation of Pair1 resulted in arrest of forward locomotion, similar to what is observed in larvae. Thus, the MDN-Pair1 neurons are an interneuronal circuit – a pair of synaptically connected interneurons – that is re-established during metamorphosis, yet generates similar locomotor behavior at both larval and adult stages.

    1. Neuroscience
    Philipp Schlegel et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The hemibrain connectome provides large-scale connectivity and morphology information for the majority of the central brain of Drosophila melanogaster. Using this data set, we provide a complete description of the Drosophila olfactory system, covering all first, second and lateral horn-associated third-order neurons. We develop a generally applicable strategy to extract information flow and layered organisation from connectome graphs, mapping olfactory input to descending interneurons. This identifies a range of motifs including highly lateralised circuits in the antennal lobe and patterns of convergence downstream of the mushroom body and lateral horn. Leveraging a second data set we provide a first quantitative assessment of inter- versus intra-individual stereotypy. Comparing neurons across two brains (three hemispheres) reveals striking similarity in neuronal morphology across brains. Connectivity correlates with morphology and neurons of the same morphological type show similar connection variability within the same brain as across two brains.