The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
eNOS, a Pressure-Dependent Regulator of Intraocular Pressure
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: Pathology in the primary drainage pathway for aqueous humor in the eye is responsible for ocular hypertension, the only treatable risk factor in patients with glaucoma. Unfortunately, the mechanisms that regulate pressure-dependent drainage of aqueous humor and thus intraocular pressure (IOP) are unknown. To better understand one possible underlying molecular factor that regulates IOP, nitric oxide (NO), pressure-dependent drainage in transgenic mice overexpressing endothelial NO synthase (eNOS) was studied. METHODS: IOP was measured by rebound tonometry in mice, and pressure versus flow data were measured by ex vivo perfusion at multiple pressures between 8 and 45 mm Hg, using mock AH ±100 μM L-NAME. A subset of eyes was examined histologically using standard techniques or was assayed for fusion protein expression by Western blot analysis. RESULTS: IOP was lower (9.6 ± 2.7 vs. 11.4 ± 2.5 mm Hg; mean ± SD; P = 0.04) and pressure-dependent drainage was higher (0.0154 ± 0.006 vs. 0.0066 ± 0.0009 μL/min/mm Hg; P = 0.002) in the transgenic mice than in the wild-type animals; however, pressure-independent drainage was unaffected. The NOS inhibitor L-NAME normalized pressure-dependent drainage in transgenic animals. For IOP >35 mm Hg, the slope of the pressure-flow curve in wild-type mice increased to match that seen in transgenic mice. Shear stress in the pressure-dependent pathway at elevated pressures was calculated to be in a range known to affect eNOS expression and activity in vascular endothelia. CONCLUSIONS: Endothelial NOS overexpression lowers IOP by increasing pressure-dependent drainage in the mouse eye. Data are consistent with NO's having a mechanoregulatory role in aqueous humor dynamics, with eNOS induction at elevated IOPs leading to increased pressure-dependent outflow.
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
Cites
Nitric Oxide in Vascular Biology
Walford, G., & Loscalzo, J. (2003) · Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1046/j.1538-7836.2003.00345.x · Cited by 302
Cited by
Vranka, J. A., Kelley, M. J., Acott, T. S., & Keller, K. E. (2015) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2014.07.014 · Cited by 393
Current understanding of conventional outflow dysfunction in glaucoma
Stamer, W. D., & Acott, T. S. (2012) · Current Opinion in Ophthalmology · doi:10.1097/icu.0b013e32834ff23e · Cited by 320
Self-citationProgress and Promise of Nitric Oxide‐Releasing Platforms
Yang, T., Zelikin, A. N., & Chandrawati, R. (2018) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.201701043 · Cited by 309
Pharmacological management of ocular hypertension: current approaches and future prospective
Bucolo, C., Salomone, S., Drago, F., Reibaldi, M., Longo, A., & Uva, M. G. (2013) · Current Opinion in Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.coph.2012.09.012 · Cited by 71
Lei, Y., Stamer, W. D., Wu, J., & Sun, X. (2014) · Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.14-14992 · Cited by 18
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Stamer, W. D., Lei, Y., Boussommier-Calleja, A., Overby, D. R., & Ethier, C. R.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2011-12-09
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 9438
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W2083989289
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.70
- 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
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.