The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Differential susceptibility to experimental glaucoma among 3 mouse strains using bead and viscoelastic injection
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this experiment was to test the susceptibility to retinal ganglion cell (RGC) axon loss and RGC layer cell loss from experimental glaucoma among 3 mouse strains, and between younger and older mice. We obstructed the mouse aqueous outflow channels by injecting 2 μL of 6 μm diameter, polystyrene beads followed by 3 μL of viscoelastic solution into the anterior chamber with a glass micropipette. We evaluated intraocular pressure (IOP) and damage to RGC as measured by optic nerve axon counts and RGC layer neuron counts in 3 strains of young mice (2 month old C57BL/6, DBA/2J, and CD1) and 10 month C57BL/6 mice. Bead and viscoelastic injection produced IOP elevation at ≥1 time point in 94.1% of eyes (112/119), with mean IOP difference from fellow eyes of 4.4 ± 3.0 mmHg. By 6–12 weeks, injected eyes were 10.8% longer and 7.6% wider (p <0.0001). Young DBA/2J and C57BL/6 eyes increased axial length significantly more than young CD1 or older C57BL/6 (all p ≤0.02). RGC layer and axon loss was greatest in CD1 mice, significantly more than the other groups (p from 0.04 to <0.0001). Young C57BL/6 eyes elongated more and lost more RGC layer cells than older C57BL/6 mice (p =0.02 and 0.01, respectively). With this mouse glaucoma model, there was differential susceptibility to ocular elongation and RGC layer and axon damage among mouse strains and by age. Factors that determine sensitivity to RGC injury can be studied using transgenic mouse strains with inducible models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Coudrillier, B., Tian, J., Alexander, S., Myers, K. M., Quigley, H. A., & Nguyen, T. D. (2012) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.11-8009 · Cited by 335
Self-citationCritical pathogenic events underlying progression of neurodegeneration in glaucoma
Calkins, D. J. (2012) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.07.001 · Cited by 309
Della Santina, L., Inman, D. M., Lupien, C. B., Horner, P. J., & Wong, R. O. L. (2013) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5461-12.2013 · Cited by 259
Neurotoxic Reactive Astrocytes Drive Neuronal Death after Retinal Injury
Guttenplan, K. A., Stafford, B. K., El-Danaf, R. N., Adler, D. I., Münch, A. E., Weigel, M. K., Huberman, A. D., & Liddelow, S. A. (2020) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107776 · Cited by 221
Proximal inhibition of p38 MAPK stress signaling prevents distal axonopathy
Dapper, J. D., Crish, S. D., Pang, I.-H., & Calkins, D. J. (2013) · Neurobiology of Disease · doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2013.07.001 · Cited by 76
“We elevated IOP in two rat cohorts using microbead occlusion of aqueous fluid flow in the anterior chamber of the eye (Chen et al., 2011; Cone et al., 2010; Crish et al., 2010; Sappington et al., 2010).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Cone, F. E., Gelman, S. E., Son, J. L., Pease, M. E., & Quigley, H. A.
- Venue
- Experimental Eye Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 415-424
- ISSN
- 0014-4835 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074279418
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Differential susceptibility to experimental glaucoma among 3 mouse strains using bead and viscoelastic injection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.exer.2010.06.018
- The paper
- Cone, F. E., Gelman, S. E., Son, J. L., Pease, M. E., & Quigley, H. A. (2010). Differential susceptibility to experimental glaucoma among 3 mouse strains using bead and viscoelastic injection. Experimental Eye Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2010.06.018
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
