Successful Subretinal Delivery and Monitoring of MicroBeads in Mice

12Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: To monitor viability of implanted genetically engineered and microencapsulated human stem cells (MicroBeads) in the mouse eye, and to study the impact of the beads and/or xenogenic cells on retinal integrity. Methodology/Principal Findings: MicroBeads were implanted into the subretinal space of SV126 wild type mice using an ab externo approach. Viability of microencapsulated cells was monitored by noninvasive retinal imaging (Spectralis™ HRA+OCT). Retinal integrity was also assessed with retinal imaging and upon the end of the study by light and electron microscopy. The implanted GFP-marked cells encapsulated in subretinal MicroBeads remained viable over a period of up to 4 months. Retinal integrity and viability appeared unaltered apart from the focal damage due to the surgical implantation, GFAP upregulation, and opsin mistargeting in the immediate surrounding tissue. Conclusions/Significance: The accessibility for routine surgery and its immune privileged state make the eye an ideal target for release system implants for therapeutic substances, including neurotrophic and anti-angiogenic compounds or protein based biosimilars. Microencapsulated human stem cells (MicroBeads) promise to overcome limitations inherent with single factor release systems, as they are able to produce physiologic combinations of bioactive compounds. © 2013 Fischer et al.

Figures

  • Figure 1. MicroBead characteristics. MicroBeads are alginate spheres with a diameter about 180 mm. (A) They may be used for a sustained release of therapeutic proteins while the producing cell population is protected from humoral and cellular immune response mechanisms. (B) For this study, beads with human mesenchymal stem cells were used that (C) express eGFP as reporter protein, which allowed to monitor localization, distribution and viability of MicroBeads in vivo. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055173.g001
  • Figure 2. In vivo analyses after subretinal implantation of MicroBeads. Directly following implantation of 12 beads, (A) infrared and (B) red free cSLO imaging demonstrate the correct localization in the subretinal space and reveal a corresponding retinal detachment. (C) EGFP fluorescence of implanted MicroBeads as detected in autofluorescence mode. The white line indicates the orientation of the OCT virtual cross section (F) through the bead application site. The filled arrowhead indicates the position of the injection channel, and the empty arrowhead denotes dispersed retinal pigment epithelial cells (see explanation in text). The asterisk indicates the optic nerve head with Bergmeister papilla. The investigation of the same site ten days after surgery revealed that the eGFP signal remained strong (D), and corresponding virtual OCT cross sections (E,G) demonstrate continuing structural integrity of MicroBeads. Directly following injection of a single bead, the in vivo imaging revealed a more localized retinal detachment (H–K,N), which is completely resorbed ten days later (L–M,O). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055173.g002
  • Figure 3. Comparison between in vivo and in situ analyses of subretinal beads. Noninvasive OCT virtual cross sections through MicroBeads allowed detection of single cells and demonstrate overall structural integrity of the sphere (A–B). Histology confirmed the subretinal location of the bead (C). Fluorescence microscopic analyses of the sphere allowed discerning eGFP signals of individual embedded cells (D). Blue: DAPI staining of retinal cell nuclei. Bars: C, 50 mm; D, 25 mm. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055173.g003
  • Figure 4. Focal damage following surgical implantation of MicroBeads. Indirect immunofluorescence of molecular markers for retinal degeneration was used to monitor side effects. Subretinal implantation was accompanied by GFAP upregulation (A–B) and opsin mislocalization to the inner segment (IS) and the outer nuclear layer (ONL) (D–E) at the site of MicroBead (asterisk) implantation and in a distance of 800 mm, which was not detected in uninjected controls. RPE: retinal pigment epithelium; OS: outer segment; OPL, outer plexiform layer; INL: inner nuclear layer; IPL: inner plexiform layer; GC: ganglion cells and Müller glia feat. Scale bars: 50 mm, 12.5 mm. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055173.g004
  • Figure 5. Ultrastructural changes of the retina in respect to subretinal injected MicroBeads. Ultrathin sections of subretinal injected MicroBeads were analyzed by transmission electron microscopy. (A) Overview of the area after subretinal MiroBead injection. Retinal integrity is altered at the site of implantation: Normal photoreceptor cell (PC) composition with outer and inner segments is not any longer visible. Furthermore, the outer (ONL) and the inner nuclear layer (INL) are fused and thereby the outer plexiform layer (OP) is not longer visible. The inner plexiform (IPL) and the ganglion cell layer (GC) do not show any gross morphological changes. (B–G) Higher magnifications of areas indicated in A. (B) Surface invagination into the alginate capsule of the MicroBead (asterisk). (C–G) Analyses of connective tissue and confluent retinal pigment epithelial cells (RPE), which closely engulfs the MicroBead (asterisk). Collagen fibrils (arrows) are visible in the RPE and connective tissue. Bars = 2.5 mm (A); 0.5 mm (B, C); 5 mm (D) 2 mm (E), 1 mm (F). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055173.g005
  • Figure 6. Retinal alterations ten weeks after surgical implantation of a MicroBead. Indirect immunofluorescence using anti-vimentin antibodies indicates vimentin upregulation at the site of the MicroBead implantation (A–B) compared to the uninjected control (C). ONL, outer nuclear layer; OPL, outer plexiform layer; INL: inner nuclear layer; IPL: inner plexiform layer; GC: ganglion cells and Müller glia feat. Scale bar: 20 mm. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055173.g006
  • Figure 7. In vivo time line analysis of eGFP signal in one individual animal after subretinal implantation of two MicroBeads. Time points are indicated as 10 minutes post surgery (left) and as 10, 16, 60 and 120 days post surgery (PS). Individual location of the optic disc with its main vessels are indicated graphically for better orientation and insets highlight the eGFP fluorescence signal originating from the implanted MicroBeads. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055173.g007

References Powered by Scopus

1876Citations
917Readers
1754Citations
938Readers

Retinitis pigmentosa

752Citations
935Readers

This article is free to access.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

113Citations
182Readers
Get full text

This article is free to access.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fischer, M. D., Goldmann, T., Wallrapp, C., Mühlfriedel, R., Beck, S. C., Stern-Schneider, G., … Seeliger, M. W. (2013). Successful Subretinal Delivery and Monitoring of MicroBeads in Mice. PLoS ONE, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055173

Readers over time

‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘23‘24‘2501234

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 8

44%

Researcher 8

44%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

6%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 7

47%

Neuroscience 4

27%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

20%

Chemical Engineering 1

7%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0