The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Limbal and Conjunctival Autograft Transplantation in Corneal Surface Reconstruction in Rabbits
Open accessAbstract
Destruction of corneal surface was created in one eye of 24 rabbits by n-heptanol corneal epithelial debridement and surgical removal of limbal zone. One month later, the animals were equally subdivided into three groups of eight for limbal transplantation, conjunctival transplantation, and control without transplantation. During a 6-month postoperative follow-up, all corneas in the control group showed progressive vascularization and conjunctivalization. All corneas with limbal transplantation showed progressive decrease of vascularity, verified by fluorescein angiography. In contrast, all but one of the eight corneas of conjunctival transplantation showed progressive vascularization (P = 0.01). More important, the resultant epithelia showed corneal phenotype in limbal transplantation, but remained conjunctival in conjunctival transplantation, as verified by monoclonal antibodies AM-3, APSM-1, and AE-5. These results support the concept of the limbal location of corneal epithelial stem cells, and indicate that complete destruction of the limbal zone resulted in corneal vascularization and conjunctivalization, and that limbal transplantation has a better efficiency than conjunctival transplantation in restoring such destroyed corneal surface.
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
Long-term restoration of damaged corneal surfaces with autologous cultivated corneal epithelium
Pellegrini, G., Traverso, C. E., Franzi, A. T., Zingirian, M., Cancedda, R., & De Luca, M. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)11188-0 · Cited by 1,379
Involvement of Follicular Stem Cells in Forming Not Only the Follicle but Also the Epidermis
Taylor, G., Lehrer, M. S., Jensen, P. J., Sun, T.-T., & Lavker, R. M. (2000) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)00050-7 · Cited by 1,070
Self-citationCorneal epithelial stem cells at the limbus: looking at some old problems from a new angle
Lavker, R. M., Tseng, S. C. G., & Sun, T.-T. (2004) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2003.09.008 · Cited by 339
Self-citationNiche regulation of corneal epithelial stem cells at the limbus
Li, W., Hayashida, Y., Chen, Y.-T., & Tseng, S. C. (2007) · Cell Research · doi:10.1038/sj.cr.7310137 · Cited by 310
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tsai, R. J.-F., Sun, T.-T., & Tseng, S. C. G.
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1990-04
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 446-455
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2062187866
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Comparison of Limbal and Conjunctival Autograft Transplantation in Corneal Surface Reconstruction in Rabbits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32575-7
- The paper
- Tsai, R. J.-F., Sun, T.-T., & Tseng, S. C. G. (1990). Comparison of Limbal and Conjunctival Autograft Transplantation in Corneal Surface Reconstruction in Rabbits. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32575-7
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.