21 research outputs found

    A mixture of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved monoaminergic drugs protects the retina from light damage in diverse models of night blindness

    Get PDF
    Purpose: The purpose of this study was to test the extent of light damage in different models of night blindness and apply these paradigms in testing the therapeutic efficacy of combination therapy by drugs acting on the Gi, Gs, and Gq protein-coupled receptors. Methods: Acute bright light exposure was used to test susceptibility to light damage in mice lacking the following crucial phototransduction proteins: rod transducin (GNAT1), cone transducin (GNAT2), visual arrestin 1 (ARR1), and rhodopsin kinase 1 (GRK1). Mice were intraperitoneally injected with either vehicle or drug combination consisting of metoprolol (β1-receptor antagonist), bromocriptine (dopamine family-2 receptor agonist) and tamsulosin (α1-receptor antagonist) before bright light exposure. Light damage was primarily assessed with optical coherence tomography and inspection of cone population in retinal whole mounts. Retinal inflammation was assessed in a subset of experiments using autofluorescence imaging by scanning laser ophthalmoscopy and by postmortem inspection of microglia and astrocyte activity. Results: The Gnat1-/- mice showed slightly increased susceptibility to rod light damage, whereas the Gnat2-/- mice were very resistant. The Arr1-/- and Grk1-/- mice were sensitive for both rod and cone light damage and showed robust retinal inflammation 7 days after bright light exposure. Pretreatment with metoprolol + bromocriptine + tamsulosin rescued the retina in all genetic backgrounds, starting at doses of 0.2 mg/kg metoprolol, 0.02 mg/kg bromocriptine, and 0.01 mg/kg tamsulosin in the Gnat1-/- mice. The therapeutic drug doses increased in parallel with light-damage severity. Conclusions: Our results suggest that congenital stationary night blindness and Oguchi disease patients can be at an elevated risk of the toxic effects of bright light. Furthermore, systems pharmacology drug regimens that stimulate Gi signaling and attenuate Gs and Gq signaling present a promising disease-modifying therapy for photoreceptor degenerative diseases

    Chemical and Physical Environmental Conditions Underneath Mat- and Canopy-Forming Macroalgae, and Their Effects on Understorey Corals

    Get PDF
    Disturbed coral reefs are often dominated by dense mat- or canopy-forming assemblages of macroalgae. This study investigated how such dense macroalgal assemblages change the chemical and physical microenvironment for understorey corals, and how the altered environmental conditions affect the physiological performance of corals. Field measurements were conducted on macroalgal-dominated inshore reefs in the Great Barrier Reef in quadrats with macroalgal biomass ranging from 235 to 1029 g DW m−2 dry weight. Underneath mat-forming assemblages, the mean concentration of dissolved oxygen was reduced by 26% and irradiance by 96% compared with conditions above the mat, while concentrations of dissolved organic carbon and soluble reactive phosphorous increased by 26% and 267%, respectively. The difference was significant but less pronounced under canopy-forming assemblages. Dissolved oxygen declined and dissolved inorganic carbon and alkalinity increased with increasing algal biomass underneath mat-forming but not under canopy-forming assemblages. The responses of corals to conditions similar to those found underneath algal assemblages were investigated in an aquarium experiment. Coral nubbins of the species Acropora millepora showed reduced photosynthetic yields and increased RNA/DNA ratios when exposed to conditions simulating those underneath assemblages (pre-incubating seawater with macroalgae, and shading). The magnitude of these stress responses increased with increasing proportion of pre-incubated algal water. Our study shows that mat-forming and, to a lesser extent, canopy-forming macroalgal assemblages alter the physical and chemical microenvironment sufficiently to directly and detrimentally affect the metabolism of corals, potentially impeding reef recovery from algal to coral-dominated states after disturbance. Macroalgal dominance on coral reefs therefore simultaneously represents a consequence and cause of coral reef degradation
    corecore