Hasil (
Bahasa Indonesia) 1:
[Salinan]Disalin!
Using 2D gel-MS analysis of CEP proteinsin light exposed rat retinas, Crabb found several glycolytic enzymes and structural proteinsthat were adducted with CEP (unpublished). In preliminary studies, we found that CEP-proteinadducts were present in rat ROS at all times of the day and night as well as during intense lightexposure (Organisciak et al., 2008).In humans, elevated levels of CEP adducts, and other oxidative protein modifications, werefound in drusen from AMD patient eyes compared to eyes from age-matched controls withoutdisease (Crabb et al., 2002). Unknown at this time is the extent of CEP adduction in eachprotein and the effects of CEP modification on enzyme activity or protein function. The origin(s) of CEP adducts in the RPE also remains an open question, as both ROS and choroidal bloodare possible sources. Elevated CEP immunoreactivity and anti-CEP autoantibody levels werefound in serum from AMD patients (Gu et al., 2003). Likewise, CEP immunostaining is presentin photoreceptors and RPE from Balb/c mice (Gu et al., 2003). Furthermore, although DHAbound to human serum albumin imparted protection against neuronal ischemia (Belayev etal., 2005), immunization of mice with CEP bound to mouse albumin produced an RPEpathology similar to that seen in AMD (Hollyfield et al., 2008). In an ongoing AREDS clinicaltrial, dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids are now being tested for their potential benefit in AMDpatients. It seems reasonable to expect that DHA oxidation and perhaps CEP auto-antibodyformation will also occur. Possibly, the cellular, or subcellular, locations of DHA and itsmetabolites will be important in determining whether beneficial or detrimental effects will beseen.4. Animal Models and Retinal Light Damage4.1 Genetic ModifiersThe advent of transgenic animals and gene knockout models has provided new opportunitiesto examine retinal degenerations based on specific amino acid mutations or the absence ofspecific proteins. Using these models, both enhanced light damage and protection against lightdamage have been found. Hao et al. (2002) tested transducin and s-antigen null mice in a lightdamage paradigm of high intensity and low intensity light. They found visual cell deathdepended on visual transduction at lower light levels, but was independent of transducin activity at high light levels. As mentioned earlier, arrestin KO mice are highly susceptible tolight damage (Chen et al., 1999). In contrast, c-fos KO mice are protected against light-inducedretinal cell apoptosis (Hafezi et al., 1997b). Yet the deletion of c-fos did not protect rd micefrom retinal degeneration (Hafezi et al., 1998), nor did it delay cell death in rhodopsin nullmice (Hobson et al., 2001). This suggests that redundant apoptotic pathways exist, and thatthey are differentially expressed in genetic animal models and environmentally induced retinaldegenerations. Over-expression of the anti-apoptotic protein bcl-2 effectively reduced retinalcell death in the rd mouse and in an opsin mutant (334ter) mouse (Chen et al., 1996). Bcl-2over-expression also resulted in decreased photoreceptor loss following prolonged lightexposure (Chen et al., 1996), but this may have been a result of shortened ROS. Joseph and Li(1996) reported light damage protection in bcl-2 transgenic mice, but they attributed the effectto lower rhodopsin levels than are found in wild type animals.The relationship between an RPE-65 polymorphism and light damage susceptibility hascomplicated some genetic studies, but also helped to clarify the role of rhodopsin in lightdamage. Using quantitative trait loci in several different mouse strains, Danciger et al.(2000) found a good correlation between RPE-65 with methionine 450 and light damageprotection versus RPE-65 leucine 450 and enhanced light damage susceptibility. They proposedthat methionine oxidation in RPE-65 slows rhodopsin regeneration, thereby reducing the extentof light damage. Subsequently, RPE-65 activity was confirmed to be the rate limiting step inrhodopsin regeneration in mice (Grimm et al., 2000c; Wenzel et al., 2003). More recently, alight sensitive mouse strain (NZW/LacJ) was found to have the protective RPE-65 met450variant (Danciger et al., 2005), indicating that other light damage genes exist (Danciger etal., 2000; ibid 2005). Frequently, rhodopsin mutations heighten susceptibility to light, be itfrom chronic dim cyclic light exposure (Naash et al., 1996), or from acute intense light (Wanget al., 1997). Recently, White et al. (2007) found that mice with a T17M rhodopsin mutation,which affects glycosylation, exhibited retinal damage after only a few minutes of intense lighttreatment. A rhodopsin glycosylation defect in dogs (T4R) also leads to extreme lightsensitivity (Gu et al., 2009). The amino terminal region of rhodopsin contains its glycosylationsites and is found on the intradiskal side of ROS membranes. The release of trans-retinal frombleached rhodopsin also appears to be intradiskal, raising the possibility that these lightsensitive animal models might exhibit abnormal retinaldehyde metabolism.4.2 Cone Cell Dominant RetinasRhodopsin’s absorption spectrum and the role of phototransduction are central tounderstanding lightinduced damage in rod photoreceptors. Our understanding of conephototransduction (Fu and Yau 2008), of cone genes (Corbo et al. 2007), of cone cell biology(Jacobson et al., 2007), and of the diurnal nature of most cone dominant retinas still lags behindour understanding of rods (Mata et al., 2002; Kefalov et al., 2005; Mata et al., 2005; Munizet al., 2007; reviewed in Mustafi et al., 2009). Discerning pathways that affect cone survivalafter light insult will be complicated, yet our human reliance on cone-based vision places acompelling focus on cones. How does light damage manifest in cone photoreceptors, and whyare cones remarkably resistant to light damage compared to rods?This issue was addressed early on, when Cicerone (1976) and LaVail (1976a) each noted conesurvival in light-damaged albino rat retina, suggesting that cone cells are more resilient thanrods in the face of light insult. However, many studies of mouse or rat retina since then haverecorded cone death which, depending on light exposure conditions and phenotype, can occurwithin days (e.g. Krebs et al. 2009) or may be markedly delayed (Tanito et al., 2007a). Theconsensus is that cone death is secondary to loss of the far more numerous rods, in other wordsa bystander effect (Chrystostomou et al., 2008, ibid. 2009, Krebs et al., 2009). Rod cell losscould deprive cones of a rod-derived survival factor (Lorentz et al. 2006, Yang et al., 2009)and possibly induce an excess of outer retinal oxygen (Stone et al., 1999) that may be toxic tocones. Progressively impaired choroidal function, likely due to massive neuronal and glialremodeling (Marc et al., 2008), has a time course consistent with the gradual starvation ofcones that initially survive light insult (Tanito et al., 2007). These proposed causes of secondarycone cell death in rod-dominant nocturnal rodent retina are not mutually exclusive.Ripps (2002) has proposed an interesting variant of the bystander effect in which gap junctionchannels are the route by which a toxic product originating in damaged rods is passed directlyto the cytoplasm of otherwise healthy neighboring cones. A gap junction-dependent exampleof natural cell death has been demonstrated in normal development of the mouse inner retinallayers (Cusato et al., 2003). Rod-cone coupling by gap junctions is also stronger at night thanin the daytime (Ribelayga et al., 2008), consistent with potentiated light damage at night, butto our knowledge, there has been no attempt to examine the role of gap junctions in retinallight damage.Because nocturnal rodent retinas normally have few cones and lack a cone-rich regionapproximating the human fovea, there have been attempts to enhance the representation ofcones in model systems. The 661W cell line isolated from mouse retinal tumors is cone-like(Tan et al., 2004; Al-Ubaidi et al., 2008) and permits in vitro experimental approaches. The661W cell line has been used recently to model “cone” light damage (Kanan et al., 2007; Yanget al., 2007a), revealing a possible signal pathway between light-damaged “cones” andmicroglia (Yang et al., 2007b). The Nrl null (Nrl−/−) mouse retina develops a rodless retinaenriched in cells that resemble short wavelength absorbing (S-) cones (Mears et al., 2001).Unusual features, such as the “cone” whorls found in the Nrl−/− retina (Mears et al., 2001,Dang et al., 2004), support the notion that Nrl−/− retina may contain “hybrid” photoreceptors(Mustafi et al., 2009). A preliminary study (Glösmann and Peichl, 2007) has showed that Scones,but not mid wavelength (M-) cones, suffer light damage in albino rats maintained inbright cyclic light (160 lux) for 4 weeks. This finding suggests that S-cone-like photoreceptorsin the Nrl−/− mouse retina might be vulnerable to light damage, but this remains to be tested.Neither of these cone-enhanced systems, nor the rodent retinas from which they were derived,bear much structural resemblance to human central retina in terms of cone numbers ordistributions. For example, human retina is estimated to contain 5–6% cones, concentrated inthe macular region, while in nocturnal rodents the 1–3% cone population is arrayed essentiallyuniformly throughout the retina. It has been logically argued that diurnal rodents, includingrod- and cone-dominant species, may be more useful models of cone cell biology in health anddisease (Table 1). In stark contrast to results from rats and mice, however, the retinas of diurnalrodents have proven markedly difficult to light damage. Collier and his associates used diurnalgray squirrels in light damage studies (Collier et al., 1989).
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..