Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Proliferative Response of Corneal Endothelial Cells from Young and Older Donors

Zhu, Cheng, Joyce, Nancy C.·2004·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of epidermal growth factor (EGF), nerve growth factor (NGF), platelet-derived growth factor-BB (PDGF-BB), bovine pituitary extract, and fetal bovine serum (FBS), alone or in combination, on proliferation of human corneal endothelial cells (HCEC) cultured from young (<30 years old) and older donors (>50 years old). METHODS: Corneas from donors 2 to 79 years old were obtained from the National Disease Research Interchange. Descemet's membrane with intact endothelium was dissected. Cells were isolated by EDTA treatment and cultured to confluence. The HCEC marker, antibody 9.3.E, tested for pure endothelial populations. Antibody Ki67 and ZO-1 tested either before or after cultured cells reached confluence to indicate cell proliferation and cell-cell contact formation. Cell morphology was documented by inverted phase-contrast microscopy. Passages I through VII were used to test the effect of various factors on cell proliferation. For each study, equal numbers of cells were seeded, maintained overnight in 4% FBS to permit cell attachment, washed, and incubated for up to 3 weeks in one of the following: modified Eagle's Minimum Essential Medium (Opti-MEM-I) alone; Opti-MEM-I plus EGF, NGF, PDGF-BB, bovine pituitary extract, or FBS; or a combination of factors. At various times after seeding, cell numbers were determined by electronic cell counter. For each condition, three separate wells were tested and each sample was counted three times. Studies were repeated at least twice using cells from different donors and age groups. Within each study, a one-way ANOVA test was performed to analyze statistical significance. RESULTS: Cells stained positively with antibody 9.3.E, indicating isolation of HCEC and lack of contamination with epithelial cells or keratocytes. Positive staining of Ki67, indicating cycling cells, was found in subconfluent cultures. Plasma membrane-associated ZO-1 staining and lack of Ki67 staining indicated that cultured cells formed a contact-inhibited monolayer. Cultured cells decreased in density, increased in size, and became more heterogeneous depending on donor age and on the number of passages. Incubation in OptiMEM-I promoted attachment and induced a moderate proliferative response above that of MEM (P < 0.001). In general, proliferative responses to growth stimuli were relatively slow, with cell counts generally plateauing 10 to 14 days after exposure to growth-promoting agents. EGF yielded a broad, dose-dependent effect and, at 5-50 ng/mL, peak cell counts were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than basal levels. EGF consistently stimulated proliferation in cells from younger donors, but was less effective in stimulating growth of cells from older donors. NGF did not show a consistent significant stimulatory effect at any concentration tested. PDGF-BB (25 ng/mL) tended to stimulate growth to a greater extent than EGF (P < 0.05) in cultures from the same donor. Pituitary extract significantly increased counts at 1.0 (P < 0.05) to 100 ug/mL (P < 0.001). PDGF-BB plus pituitary extract demonstrated greater stimulation than pituitary extract (P < 0.01) or PDGF-BB alone (P < 0.01). FBS (1%-8%) increased cell numbers in a dose-dependent manner, and, at 4%-8%, yielded counts significantly higher (P < 0.001) than that of any single growth-promoting agent tested. CONCLUSIONS: HCEC from both young and older donors can proliferate in vitro in response to growth-promoting agents. Proliferation in the presence of multiple mitogens ceased when confluence was reached, indicating the formation of a contact-inhibited monolayer. In general, cells cultured from young donors were more responsive to the agents tested, but the relative response of HCEC to these agents was similar, regardless of donor age. The relative difference in the extent of the response of the same cell population to different mitogens suggests that these mitogens induce different downstream signals. The relatively robust proliferative response of HCEC to FBS may involve stimulation of multiple downstream signaling pathways may involve stimulation of multiple downstream signaling pathways and/or induce more sustained downstream signaling than the other growth-promoting agents tested.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/iovs.03-0814

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 269

Metadata

Authors
Zhu, C., & Joyce, N. C.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2004-06-01
Volume
45
Issue
6
Pages
1743
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W1965941046
Cited by
269
References
24
FWCI
6.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.