Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2017, Article ID 8604723, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8604723
Research Article

Combination of Neuroprotective and Regenerative Agents for AGE-Induced Retinal Degeneration: In Vitro Study

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Inohana 1-8-1, Chuo-ku, Chiba, Chiba Prefecture 260-8670, Japan

Correspondence should be addressed to Toshiyuki Oshitari; moc.loa@iirat

Received 2 December 2016; Revised 27 February 2017; Accepted 4 April 2017; Published 9 May 2017

Academic Editor: Yoshifumi Saisho

Copyright © 2017 Guzel Bikbova et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Figure 1. TUNEL-positive cells in the INL. Total numbers of TUNEL-positive cells in the INL were too small and the data was expressed the number per explant. In the control, the number of TUNEL-positive cells/explant was 4.0±3.6/explant. In retinas supplemented with citicoline, TUDCA and NT-4, the numbers were significantly reduced compared to control (2.3±2.8 vs. 4.0±3.6/explant, 2.5±2.6 vs. 4.0±3.6/explant, 1.3±2.4 vs. 4.0±3.6/explant; P<0.05, respectively). In retinas supplemented with doublet and triplet, the numbers were significantly reduced compare to control (0.8±1.1 vs. 4.0±3.6/explant, 0.7±1.2 vs. 4.0±3.6/explant; P<0.05, respectively). In AGE-exposed retinas, the number was significantly increased compared to control (11.2±7.2 vs. 4.0±3.6/explant; P<0.01). In AGE-exposed retinas incubated with RAGE inhibitor, citicoline, TUDCA, NT-4, doublet and triplet, the numbers were significantly smaller than AGE-exposed retinas without neurotrophic factors (8.0±6.7 vs. 11.2±7.2/explant, 6.0±4.8 vs. 11.2±7.2/explant, 7.7±6.8 vs. 11.2±7.2/explant, 2.5±2.3 vs. 11.2±7.2/explant, 6.0±5.6 vs. 11.2±7.2/explant, 2.8±2.8 vs. 11.2±7.2/explant; P<0.05, respectively).

Supplementary Figure 2. TUNEL-positive cells in the ONL. Total numbers of TUNEL-positive cells in the ONL were too small and the data was expressed the number per explant. In the control, the number of TUNEL-positive cells/explant was 1.3±1.4/explant. In retinas supplemented with citicoline, TUDCA and NT-4, the numbers were significantly reduced compared to control (0.8±1.1 vs. 1.3±1.4/explant, 1.0±1.2 vs. 1.3±1.4/explant, 0.2±0.5 vs. 1.3±1.4/explant; P<0.05, respectively). In retinas supplemented with doublet and triplet, the numbers were significantly reduced compare to control (0.4±0.7 vs. 1.3±1.4/explant, 0.1±0.3 vs. 1.3±1.4/explant; P<0.05, respectively). In AGE-exposed retinas, the number was significantly increased compared to control (4.3±3.0 vs. 1.3±1.4/explant; P<0.01). In AGE-exposed retinas incubated with RAGE inhibitor, citicoline, TUDCA, and triplet, the numbers were significantly smaller than AGE-exposed retinas without neurotrophic factors (3.9±1.9 vs. 4.3±3.0/explant, 3.2±2.1 vs. 4.3±3.0/explant, 2.4±2.5 vs. 4.3±3.0/explant, 1.0±1.3 vs. 4.3±3.0/explant; P<0.05, respectively). In AGE-exposed retinas incubated with NT-4 and doublet, the numbers did not reach statistical significance compared to AGE-exposed retinas without neurotrophic factors (1.1±1.2 vs. 4.3±3.0; P=0.059, 2.9±3.3 vs. 4.3±3.0; P=0.076, respectively).

  1. Supplementary Material