Electroretinographical and histological study of mouse retina after optic nerve section: a comparison between wild-type and retinal degeneration 1 mice

Background: Retinal ganglion cell death underlies the pathophysiology of neurodegenerative disorders such as glaucoma or optic nerve trauma. To assess the potential influence of photoreceptor degeneration on retinal ganglion cell survival, and to evaluate functionality, we took advantage of the optic nerve section mouse model. Methods: Surviving retinal ganglion cells were double-stained by exposing both superior colliculi to fluorogold, and by applying dextran-tetramethylrhodamine to the injured optic nerve stump. To assess retinal function in wild-type animals, electroretinograms were recorded on the injured eyes and compared with the contralateral. Similar labelling experiments were carried out on retinal degeneration 1 mice. Surviving retinal ganglion cells were counted 21 days after axotomy and compared with wild-type mice. No functional experiments were performed on retinal degeneration 1 animals because they do not develop normal electroretinographical responses. Results: A significant decrease in retinal ganglion cell density was observed 6 days after axotomy in the wild type. Functional studies revealed that, in scotopic conditions, axotomy induced a significant amplitude decrease in the positive scotopic threshold response component of the electroretinogram. Such decrease paralleled cell loss, suggesting it may be an appropriate technique to evaluate functionality. When comparing retinal ganglion cell densities in wild-type and retinal degeneration 1 mice, a significant greater survival was observed on the latter. Conclusions: After optic nerve section, electroretinographical recordings exhibited a progressive decrease in the amplitude of the positive scotopic threshold response wave, reflecting ganglion cell loss. Interestingly, rod degeneration seemed, at least initially, to protect from axotomy-driven damage.

Reproducibility comparison among multiangle spectrophotometers

New color-measuring instruments known as multiangle spectrophotometers have been recently created to measure and characterize the goniochromism of special-effect pigments in many materials with a particular visual appearance (metallic, interference, pearlescent, sparkle, or glitter). These devices measure the gonioapparent color from the spectral relative reflectance factor and the L*a*b* values of the sample with different illumination and observation angles. These angles usually coincide with requirements marked in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and Deutsches Institut Für Normung standards relating to the gonioapparent color, but the results of comparisons between these instruments are still inconclusive. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to compare several multiangle spectrophotometers at a reproducibility level according to ASTM E2214-08 guidelines. In particular, we compared two X-Rite multi-gonio spectrophotometers (MA98 and MA68II), a Datacolor multi-gonio spectrophotometer (FX10), and a BYK multi-gonio spectrophotometer (BYK-mac). These instruments share only five common measurement geometries: 45° × −30° (as 15°), 45° × −20° (as 25°), 45° × 0° (as 45°), 45° × 30° (as 75°), 45° × 65° (as 110°). Specific statistical studies were used for the reproducibility comparison, including a Hotelling test and a statistical intercomparison test to determine the confidence interval of the partial color differences ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*, and the total color difference ΔE*ab. This was conducted using a database collection of 88 metallic and pearlescent samples that were measured 20 times without the replacement of all the instruments. The final findings show that in most measurement geometries, the reproducibility differences between pairs of instruments are statistically significant, although in general, there is a better reproducibility level at certain common geometries for newer instruments (MA98 and BYK-mac). This means that these differences are due to systematic or bias errors (angle tolerances for each geometry, photometric scales, white standards, etc.), but not exclusively to random errors. However, neither of the statistical tests used is valid to discriminate and quantify the detected bias errors in this comparison between instruments.