4.7 Article

Assessment of red blood cell deformability in type 2 diabetes mellitus and diabetic retinopathy by dual optical tweezers stretching technique

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep15873

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology
  2. NMRC overseas research training fellowship by Ministry of Health, Singapore
  3. NMRC overseas research training fellowship from National Medical Research Council (NMRC), Ministry of health (MOH), Singapore

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A pilot cross sectional study was conducted to investigate the role of red blood cells (RBC) deformability in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without and with diabetic retinopathy (DR) using a dual optical tweezers stretching technique. A dual optical tweezers was made by splitting and recombining a single Nd:YAG laser beam. RBCs were trapped directly (i.e., without microbead handles) in the dual optical tweezers where they were observed to adopt a side-on orientation. RBC initial and final lengths after stretching were measured by digital video microscopy, and a Deformability index (DI) calculated. Blood from 8 healthy controls, 5 T2DM and 7 DR patients with respective mean age of 52.4yrs, 51.6 yrs and 52 yrs was analysed. Initial average length of RBCs for control group was 8.45 +/- 0.25 mu m, 8.68 +/- 0.49 mu m for DM RBCs and 8.82 +/- 0.32 mu m for DR RBCs (p < 0.001). The DI for control group was 0.0698 +/- 0.0224, and that for DM RBCs was 0.0645 +/- 0.03 and 0.0635 +/- 0.028 (p < 0.001) for DR group. DI was inversely related to basal length of RBCs (p = 0.02). DI of RBC from DM and DR patients was significantly lower in comparison with normal healthy controls. A dual optical tweezers method can hence be reliably used to assess RBC deformability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available