4.5 Review

Methods to Induce Chronic Ocular Hypertension: Reliable Rodent Models as a Platform for Cell Transplantation and Other Therapies

Journal

CELL TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 213-229

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0963689717724793

Keywords

rodent models; glaucoma; chronic ocular hypertension

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Glaucoma, a form of progressive optic neuropathy, is the second leading cause of blindness worldwide. Being a prominent disease affecting vision, substantial efforts are being made to better understand glaucoma pathogenesis and to develop novel treatment options including neuroprotective and neuroregenerative approaches. Cell transplantation has the potential to play a neuroprotective and/or neuroregenerative role for various ocular cell types (e.g., retinal cells, trabecular meshwork). Notably, glaucoma is often associated with elevated intraocular pressure, and over the past 2 decades, several rodent models of chronic ocular hypertension (COH) have been developed that reflect these changes in pressure. However, the underlying pathophysiology of glaucoma in these models and how they compare to the human condition remains unclear. This limitation is the primary barrier for using rodent models to develop novel therapies to manage glaucoma and glaucoma-related blindness. Here, we review the current techniques used to induce COH-related glaucoma in various rodent models, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the each, in order to provide a more complete understanding of how these models can be best utilized. To so do, we have separated them based on the target tissue (pre-trabecular, trabecular, and post-trabecular) in order to provide the reader with an encompassing reference describing the most appropriate rodent COH models for their research. We begin with an initial overview of the current use of these models in the evaluation of cell transplantation therapies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available