These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative analysis of electroretinogram with subdermal and invasive recording methods in mice.
    Author: Liu S, Yuan F, Xiang M.
    Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun; 2023 May 07; 655():118-126. PubMed ID: 36934587.
    Abstract:
    Electroretinogram (ERG) is the most common clinical and basic visual electrodiagnostic test, which has long been used to evaluate the retinal function through photic stimulation. Despite its wide application, there are still some pitfalls often neglected in ERG recording, such as the recording time point, active electrode location, and the animal strain. In this study, we systematically analyzed and compared the effects of multiple factors on ERG, which would provide an important reference for ERG detection by other investigators. ERG was recorded using the Celeris D430 rodent ERG testing system. The amplitudes and latencies of a wave, b wave and oscillatory potentials (OPs) recorded from different electrode locations (subdermal and invasive), different times of day (day time 8:00 to 13:00 and night time 18:00 to 23:00), bilateral eyes (left and right), and different mouse strains (C57 and CD1) were analyzed and compared. Our results revealed that ERG was affected by active electrode locations and difference between day and night, while OPs seemed not to be influenced. There was no significant difference in the amplitudes or latencies of ERG and OPs between left and right eyes, irrespective of measurements at day or night, or which method was used. Compared to C57 mice, both ERG and OP responses were significantly decreased in Brn3bAP/AP mice, a model for retinal ganglion cell (RGC) loss. In addition, there were some non-negligible differences in visual responses between C57 and CD1 mouse strains. Our results suggest that the invasive procedure is a reliable method for evaluating the visual function including VEP, ERG and OP responses in mice. Moreover, these comparative analyses provide valuable references for future studies of mammalian visual electrophysiology.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]