Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 9;21(3):e0340477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0340477

Evaluation of risk promoting effects for age-related macular degeneration by estradiol

Inga-Marie Pompös 1, Dietrich Polenz 2, Norbert Kociok 1, Silvia Winkler 1, Olaf Strauß 1,*
Editor: Mohd Akbar Bhat3
PMCID: PMC12970862  PMID: 41801974

Abstract

Early menopause increases the risk for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the most common cause of vision loss in industrialized countries. The supplementation with estradiol reduces the risk in these cases and suggesting that estradiol deficiency is a mediator of the risk association. We investigated rat models of estradiol deficiency mimicking either biological ageing (22 months of age) or early menopause by ovariectomy and age of 22 months. Serum analysis of gonadal hormones in both models showed the expected reduction in estradiol levels compared to 6 months old controls but also increases in progesterone, corticosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S). Comparing the two estradiol deficiency models, we found no differences except for DHEA-S that were reduced in ovariectomized rats. The hormone status was associated with degenerative changes in the retina with higher activity of mononuclear phagocytes and p16/p21-dependent senescence. Mainly the estrogen receptor beta (ERβ) expressing cells were affected by estradiol deficiency: ganglion cells, cells of the inner nuclear layer (INL) and retinal pigment epithelial cells. An exception are photoreceptors that were ERβ negative, showed stronger degeneration in ovariectomized rats compared to sham treated animals. We conclude that either biological or ovariectomy induced estradiol deficiency might not cause but rather promote mechanisms that lead to AMD. The phenotype depends on a broader spectrum of altered hormones than on estradiol alone. Photoreceptor degeneration and cellular senescence that were ERβ independent in ovariectomized rats suggest non-estradiol effects to increase AMD risk by early menopause.

Introduction

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the third leading cause of blindness worldwide [1] and it affects approximately 195.6 million people [2]. The prevalence of AMD is significantly higher in high-income regions, such as Western Europe, where it accounts for more than half of all blindness cases [3]. Due to demographic shifts, the incidence of AMD is projected to rise significantly. The WHO estimates that the number of affected individuals will exceed 243 million within the next decade, posing a significant socioeconomic burden [2].

AMD is characterized by chronic para-inflammation, a persistent low-grade inflammatory state that does not primarily serve to combat pathogens. This para-inflammation develops when the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) loses its ability to maintain the immune privilege of the retina. This loss of immune barrier properties by the RPE results from phototoxic stress, lipofuscin accumulation, drusen formation, and decreased Bruch’s membrane permeability, which progressively damage the RPE [4,5]. Vision loss occurs in the advanced stages of AMD, either through choroidal neovascularization (CNV or neovascular AMD, nAMD) or geographic atrophy (GA). Currently, no effective treatment exists for GA. For CNV, intravitreal injections of inhibitors for vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) have become standard clinical practice, significantly improving vision. However, recurrences and cases of non-responsiveness are frequently observed in clinical practice [6]. Overall, the anticipated increase in AMD cases highlights a growing gap in therapeutic options.

In addition to age, major risk factors for AMD include genetic predisposition, hypertension, smoking, and an increased body mass index (BMI) [7,8]. Recent studies indicate that older women are also at a higher risk of developing AMD, as supported by findings from the three major epidemiological AMD studies: the Beaver Dam Eye Study, the Blue Mountain Eye Study, and the Rotterdam Study of The Elderly [9]. Interestingly, earlier onset of sexual maturity and later onset of menopause are associated with a reduced risk of developing AMD in women [10,11]. The resulting assumption that estrogen levels play a crucial protective role was confirmed in 1992 by the Nurses’ Health Study. This large case-control study found that postmenopausal estrogen supplementation reduced the risk of nAMD by 48% [12,13]. Subsequent studies have supported these findings, showing that postmenopausal hormone therapy decreases the risk of both nAMD and GA [1417].

Estrogen is a crucial sex hormone in both women and men, with significant extragonadal synthesis. In postmenopausal women, estradiol—the most biologically active estrogen—can decrease by up to 80%, leading to heightened inflammatory activity and oxidative stress. Postmenopausal estrogen deficiency correlates with elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-1β (IL-1β), monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1), interleukin-8 (IL-8), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα), as well as increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and lipid peroxidation end-products such as malondialdehyde (MDA), hydroxynonenal (HNE), and advanced glycation end-products (AGE) [17,18]. Hormone therapy during menopause or after ovariectomy reduces the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines [1921] and protects against excessive ROS release [22,23].

Being the blood/retina barrier, the RPE is under influence of systemically circulating steroid hormones such as mineralocorticoids or aldosterone [24,25]. The effects of reduced systemic estrogen levels on the RPE remain incompletely understood. However, estrogen appears to be a protective factor against AMD by mitigating oxidative stress and para-inflammation. The primary nuclear and membrane estrogen receptors (ERα, ERß, PGR30) are also expressed in the retina, particularly in the RPE. This presence is consistent across ages and does not differ between genders [14,15].

Under physiological conditions, the RPE ensures the maintenance of the immune-privilege of the retina. It is a crucial part of the outer blood-retinal barrier, with the fenestrated choroidal endothelium and the RPE as tight epithelium creating the border through impermeable tight junctions. At this regulatory checkpoint, the RPE inhibits local immune responses [5,26]. The RPE is capable of secreting immunosuppressive or immunoregulatory factors and expressing surface molecules with immunoregulatory or cytotoxic functions; in addition, it has anaphylatoxin receptors, toll-like receptors, IL-1ß and TNFα receptors, among others, for efficient exchange with immune cells. Effector cells (from the innate and adaptive immune system) are converted by the RPE into a regulatory or reparative phenotype when this barrier is crossed [27]. In a disease state, this immunogenic function of the RPE is disturbed. The disturbance of immunogenic function precedes decades of long harmful metabolic/photo-oxidative impacts on the RPE [4,2832]. The subsequent loss of RPE cells does not lead to impairment of the monolayer but evokes local inflammation through complement activation and attraction of mononuclear phagocytes, Iba1+ cells [3335]. Complement and immune cells overcome the RPEs’ immune barrier properties, the latter ones by TNFα and IL-1β secretion [33,34]. The phenotype of the RPE changes into one with immunostimulatory and pro-inflammatory properties. By secreting MCP-1 and complement factors, and other cytokines and chemokines such as IL-6 and VEGF-A, the RPE attracts and activates facilitating their transition into a pro-inflammatory phenotype that infiltrates the retina [5,36,37]. The precise cause of this switch from the immunomodulatory to the pro-inflammatory phenotype of RPE is still unclear. We hypothesize that systemic estrogen deficiency compromises the immune-inhibitory phenotype of the RPE, thereby influencing the risk of nAMD.

To test this hypothesis, we investigated two rat models for estradiol deficiency: 22 months old rats with biological estradiol deficit and rats ovariectomized at the age of 8 months and investigated at 22 months of age as well; 6 months old rats served as controls. The rat retinas were examined using quantitative PCR (qPCR), immunocytochemistry, and AI-based image analysis. The results were assessed on account of the serum levels of gonadal hormones. In addition, functional tests of ERβ expression were conducted in vitro using ARPE-19 cells. These experiments demonstrated structural degeneration in estradiol receptor-positive retinal cells, increased Iba1+ cell activity, and abundant senescence markers in estrogen-deficient rat models. Serum analyses indicated that these changes were not exclusively attributable to estradiol deficiency, suggesting that additional gonadal hormones may contribute to disease pathology.

Materials and methods

In vitro experiments; ARPE-19 cell culture and PCR analyses

ARPE-19 cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium/F12 with a supplement of 10% Fetal Bovine Serum and 1% Penicillin/Streptomycin. The culture was maintained at 37°C with a controlled level of 5% CO2. Prior to the experiment, semi-confluent (80% confluent) cells were incubated in serum-free medium overnight. The cells were exposed to 17ß-Estradiol 4µM for 6 hours and TNFα 0.6nM for 2 hours (Table 1). The isolation of RNA was carried out using the RNeasy Plus Mini Kit, followed by the synthesis of complementary DNA (cDNA) using the QuantiTect Reverse Transcription Kit. Primers for quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) were obtained from Eurofins Genomics. The primer sequences are provided in Table 2. Gene expression levels were quantified by qPCR using a Biozym SYBR green PCR kit on a RotorGene as a real-time PCR cycler. The ∆∆CT method was used for analysis. The expression of ERα (ESR1) and ERß (ESR2) was confirmed using a RT-PCR, followed by the separation of the samples using 2% agarose gel electrophoresis with ethidium bromide.

Table 1. Material information for in vitro experiments.

Material Source Cat.No
ARPE-19 cells ATCC, Manassas, USA CRL-2302
17ß-Estradiol Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany 50-28-2
TNFa R&D Systems, Minneapolis, USA 210-TA-020/CF
RNeasy Plus Mini Kit Qiagen, Hilden, Germany 74136
QuantiTect Reverse Transcription Kit Qiagen, Hilden, Germany 205314
SYBR green PCR kit Biozym, Oldendorf, Germany 331416S

Table 2. primers used for in vitro PCR analyses.

Primer Forward Reverse Product Length Template
GAPDH TCAACGACCACTTTGTCAAGCTCA GCTGGTGGTCCAGGGGTCTTACT 119 bp NM_001357943.2
IL8 ACT CCA AAC CTT TCC ACC CC TTC TCA GCC CTC TTC AAA AAC T 175 bp NM_000584.4
CFH CCT GAT CGC AAG AAA GAC CAG ACT GAA CGG AAT TAG GTC CAA C 94 bp NM_000186.4
VEGFA CCAGCACATAGGAGAGATG GGAACATTTACACGTCTGC 223 bp NM_003376.6
IL1b TCG CCA GTG AAA TGA TGG CT TGG AAG GAG CAC TTC ATC TGT T 91 bp NM_000576.3
EGF CAG GGA AGA TGA CCA CCA CT AGC CAA CAA CAC AGT TGC AT 140 bp NM_001178130.3
PGF TGCCTTCAACAACGTGAGAG AGGATCCGCATCCCTACTTT 242 bp NM_002632.6
C3 GGAGCAGTCAAGGTCTACGC ACTTGATGGGGCTGATGAAC 346 bp NM_000064.4
C5 ACATTACGAGTGGTGCCAGAA CCCTTTGGGGAGGTGGGTTA 243 bp NM_001735.3
CCL2 TCA AAC TGA AGC TCG CAC TCT GGG GCA TTG ATT GCA TCT GG 123 bp NM_002982.4
ESR1 AAT TCA GAT AAT CGA CGC CAG GTG TTT CAA CAT TCT CCC TCC TC 345 bp NM_000125.4
ESR2 TAG TGG TCC ATC GCC AGT TAT GGG AGC CAC ACT TCA CCA T 393 bp NM_001437.3

In vivo experiments; ovariectomy and sham surgery

Eye and serum samples for our investigations were obtained by our partners from the Department of Experimental Surgery, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, following Charité’s C3R concept (where the experiments were approved by the local government authorities (Landesamt für Gesundheit und Soziales, LAGeSo, Berlin) under G0118/21). We used samples from young and old female Lewis rats obtained from Janvier Labs (Le Genest-Saint-Isle, France). The animals had either a physiological estrus and hormonal profile or a surgically early estrous disruption induced in select donor animals through bilateral ovariectomy. Bilateral ovariectomy was performed at 8 months of age to model early-onset menopause. The control group underwent sham surgery at the same age to mimic surgical and anesthetic stress without ovary removal. The procedure was as follows: ovariectomy [38] was performed in 8 months old rats under isoflurane anesthesia following premedication with buprenorphine (0.02 mg/kg s.c.) and metamizole (100 mg/kg s.c.). After induction with 3.5% isoflurane in oxygen, the abdomen was shaved and disinfected with 70% ethanol. Eyes were protected with VITA POS ointment. Anesthesia was maintained with 1–1.5% isoflurane, adjusted based on respiration and circulation. A midline laparotomy was performed, the wound edges were secured, and the small intestine was repositioned. The ovary was mobilized, ligated (silk 6−0), and excised using spring scissors. The procedure was repeated bilaterally. The abdominal cavity was closed in two layers with absorbable suture material. Before skin closure, wound edges were treated with bupivacaine gel for pain relief, and the skin was sealed with Vetbond tissue glue. Surgery lasted ~20 minutes. Rats were placed in a prewarmed recovery cage and monitored. Postoperative analgesia included carprofen (5 mg/kg s.c., 2 days) and tramadol (20 mg/100 ml drinking water, 3 days).

The sham surgery followed the same protocol as ovariectomy but without ovary removal Table 3.

Table 3. material and medication for surgeries.

Material Source
BUPRENOVET MULTI Elanco, Bad Homburg, Germany
Metamizole, Novaminsulfon-ratiopharm Ratiopharm, Ulm, Germany
Isoflurane CP-Pharma, Burgdorf, Germany
VITA POS eye ointment URSAPHARM, Saarbrücken, Germany
Arterial clamp, Mosquito curved 12.5 cm Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany
Mass ligature, black silk 6−0 Resorba, Nuremberg, Germany
Absorbable, atraumatic suture material, PDS II Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Norderstedt, Germany
Bupivacaine gel 1% Charité Apotheke, Berlin, Germany
Vetbond tissue adhesive 3M, St. Paul, USA
Carposol CP-Pharma, Burgdorf, Germany
Tramal Drops Grünenthal, Stolberg, Germany

Ex vivo experiments; hormone profile

To analyze the hormone profile, blood samples were collected ex vivo and centrifuged at 3000 × g for 10 minutes. Serum was separated by pipetting the supernatant and stored at −20°C until analysis. The analyses were conducted using ELISA and LC-MS/MS techniques at Dresden Lab Service GmbH (Dresden, Germany).

Ex vivo experiments; PCR analyses

For qPCR analyses of estrogen receptors and inflammatory markers, the RPE was isolated from enucleated eyes [39]. We made a circular incision to dissect the cornea before removing the lens and vitreous. The eyecups were flattened using four to five radial incisions extending from the peripheral fundus toward the optic nerve. The optic nerve was severed, allowing removal of the retina by separation of the retina and from RPE. The remaining part, which includes the RPE, choroid, and sclera, was then snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C until RNA isolation. Total RNA was extracted from rat RPE using the RNeasy Plus Mini Kit, according to the manufacturer’s user manual (Table 4). The cDNA was synthesized with the QuantiTect Reverse Transcription Kit. Primers for ex vivo qPCR were obtained from Eurofins Genomics (Table 5). Gene expression was assessed using the Quantinova SYBR Green PCR Kit on a RotorGene real time PCR system. The housekeeping gene (GAPDH) showed consistent expression at 13–15 cycles. The results of the target genes were analyzed as described in the in vitro section.

Table 4. Material information for ex vivo PCR analyses.

Material Source Cat.No
RNeasy Plus Mini Kit Qiagen, Hilden, Germany 74136
QuantiTect Reverse Transcription Kit Qiagen, Hilden, Germany 205314
SYBR Green PCR Kit Quigen, Hilden, Germany 208056

Table 5. Primers used for ex vivo PCR analyses.

Gene Forward Reverse Product length Template
Ccl2 TGTAGCATCCACGTGCTGTC CTTGAGCTTGGTGACAAATACTACA 165 bp NM_031530.1
C3 ACT CCA AAC CTT TCC ACC CC ACCTCATCTGAGCCTGACTTG 175 bp NM_016994.2
Pgf CAGTGAACGGGACACCCATC AGTTGTTCCCAGCAGACAGG 194 bp NM_053595.2
Il1b TAGCAGCTTTCGACAGTGAGGAG CCTTCCTGAAGCTCTTGTCGAG 156 bp NM_031512.2
Esr1 TTG CTC TTG GAC AGG AAT CAA G TCG GTG GAT GTG GTC CTT CT 210 bp NM_012689.2
Esr2 TCG TTC TGG ACA GGG ATG AG GCA GAA GCC AAG GGG TAC AT 169 bp NM_012754.3
Cxcl2 ACC ATC AGG GTA CAG GGG TT CAC CGT CAA GCT CTG GAT GT 101 bp NM_053647.2
Gapdh TTGTGCAGTGCCAGCCTC TTGTCACAAGAGAAGGCAGC 106 bp NM_017008.4

Ex vivo experiments; immunohistochemistry in sagittal sections and flatmount samples

The eyes for paraffin-embedded sagittal sections were fixed after the removal for 48 hours in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA). Following this, the eyes were transferred into 70% ethanol and stored at 4°C until the embedding process. The embedding, sectioning and hematoxylin-eosin staining were performed by our technical assistant Ms. Oberländer and the Central Biobank Charité (ZeBanC). Paraffin-embedded eyes were deparaffinized in an oven for 20 minutes following sequential rehydration: 20 minutes in ROTICLEAR, followed by two rounds of 10 minutes in isopropanol, and 5 minutes each in 96%, 90%, 70%, and 50% ethanol. For antigen unmasking, the samples were incubated in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) buffer (pH 9.0) for senescence staining (20 minutes in a steamer), or with proteinase K for the ERß staining (7 minutes at room temperature). After washing three times with Tris-buffered saline (TBS) for 5 minutes each, the samples were permeabilized in 0.5% Triton-X 100 for 15 minutes. A one-hour blocking step with 5% serum albumin (BSA) was performed before adding the primary antibodies (Table 6 A and 6B). The next day, the primary antibodies were removed, and the samples were washed again with TBS. Secondary antibodies (Table 7 A and 7B) were added along with 3µM 4’,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) and incubated for one hour at room temperature. After a final wash, coverslips were applied, and slides were stored in the dark at 4°C until microscopy with a ZEISS Axio Imager.M2 fluorescence microscope (Carl Zeiss Microscopy Germany, Jena) at 200- or 400-times magnification.

Table 6. primary antibodies for immunohistochemical staining Supplemental Information available zenodo; “S6 Tabl_Antibody_Registry_beta_ID_Tab6_Tab7”.

Primary antibody/Lectin Concentration
A CDKN2B/CDKN2A/p16 Monoclonal Antibody (C-7)-Alexa Fluor 488, mouse IgG1 1/100
p21 Monoclonal Antibody, rabbit IgG 1/1000
B ESR2 phospho S105 Polyclonal Antibody, rabbit IgG 1/250
C Acti-stain 555 Fluorescent Phalloidin (Lectin from Amanita phalloides) 1/500
Anti-Iba1 Monoclonal Antibody (EPR16589), rabbit IgG 1/500

Table 7. Secondary antibodies for immunohistochemical staining Supplemental Information available zenodo; “S6_Antibody_Registry_beta_ID_Tab6_Tab7”.

Secondary antibody Concentration
A/B Donkey anti-rabbit IgG (H + L)-Cy3 AffiniPure, Polyclonal 1/100
C Donkey IgG anti-rabbit IgG (H + L)-Alexa Fluor 488, Polyclonal 1/500

To prepare flatmount samples, we used a method that has been published earlier [3941]. In short, the eyes were fixed in 4% PFA for 13 minutes and then washed in Dulbecco’s phosphate-buffered saline (DPBS) for 15 minutes. The subsequent preparation procedure was similar to that used for qPCR analyses; by a circular incision the cornea was dissected and the lens and vitreous removed, the eyecups were flattened using four to five radial incisions from the peripheral fundus toward the optic nerve, the optic nerve was severed and the retina removed. The remaining flatmount, containing the RPE, choroid, and sclera, were permeabilized by incubating them in 5% Triton-X 100 at 4°C for 12 hours, preparing them for staining the following day. To block nonspecific binding, samples were incubated for 24 hours at 4°C with 15% BSA before the primary antibodies (Table 6 C) were applied. After 3 days of incubation at 4°C, the flatmounts were washed 3 times (10 minutes each on the shaker) to apply the secondary antibody (Table 7 C), with which the samples were incubated for 1 hour at room temperature on a shaker. Finally, three additional washes were performed before the samples were mounted and stored in the dark at 4°C until scanning with the confocal microscope Leica SPE at 200 magnification. The RPE and Iba1+ cells were analyzed in projected z-stack scans of the peripheral and central RPE-flatmounts by using the “Cell Count - Cellpose” recipe in AIVIA version 14.1.0 (Leica Microsystems GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany).

Data analysis

For the statistical analyses, the data were tested for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Afterward, normally distributed datasets were compared using an unpaired t-test, and nonparametric datasets were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. The results are shown as a scatter plot with bars as mean with SEM or as box plots with mean and whiskers from minimum to maximum. Values of *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001 were marked as statistically significant.

Results

The phenotype of structural changes in the aged and aged retina after early menopause

To evaluate effects of reduced estradiol levels onto the retina, we used either aged (22 months old) or ovariectomized (22 months old) Lewis rats (Fig 1A) as models for estradiol deficiency. Serum analyses revealed a broader spectrum of alterations of the hormone levels in the deficit models (Figs 1B and 1C). As controls served 6 months old Lewis rats. In comparison with 6 months old rats, the deficit models showed decreased levels of estradiol as expected but also significant effects on other steroid hormones. Progesterone and corticosterone were increased in the estradiol deficit models. Furthermore, we observed an increase in DHEA-S under estradiol deficiency conditions (Fig 1B). When comparing 22 months old sham treated with ovariectomized rats (Fig 1C), we found no significant differences in most hormones of the investigated panel, suggesting that the physiological decline in estradiol production and an induced premature reduction in estradiol production result in a similar hormone profile at this advanced age. However, the serum levels of DHEA-S were reduced in the ovariectomized rats compared with the sham treated rats.

Fig 1. Rat model of estradiol deficit.

Fig 1

A) Experimental Groups, created with BioRender.com B) Serum concentration of hormones depending on age (green = 6 months, red = 22 months). C) Serum concentration of hormones depending on surgical early menopause or during biological ageing (orange = Sham, red = OVX). Mann-Whitney tests were performed and the results are shown as boxes and whiskers (number of serum samples: 6Mo n = 6, 22Mo n = 12, Sham n = 6, OVX n = 6, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001).

Following the hypothesis that reduced estradiol levels might contribute to retinal degenerative alterations, we investigated the retina structure in 6 months, 22 months and 22 months ovariectomized rats (Fig 2A). For that structural analysis, we quantified the cell density of nuclei in the ganglion cell layer (GCL) and the density of the outer nuclear layers (ONL) in HE stained sagittal retinal sections. Indeed, the hormone status is associated with changes in retinal structure. As the 22 months sham treated rats showed no differences in the GCL compared with 6 months old rats, the comparison with ovariectomized rats exhibited a strong reduction in the ganglion cell nuclei density (Fig 2B). Furthermore, we found a clear manifestation of photoreceptor degeneration (Fig 2C). Here, compared with 6 months old rats, sham treated 22 months old rats had a significant reduced number of nuclei in the ONL, while ovariectomized rats showed an even more pronounced reduction in the number of nuclei.

Fig 2. Degeneration and cell loss.

Fig 2

A) HE stained sagittal sections (400x magnification, scale bar = 100µm); left column shows the inner retina, right column shows the RPE. B) Cell loss per 100pixel GCL, C) Cell loss per 100pix2 ONL (green = 6 months, orange = 22 months Sham, red = 22 months OVX). Unpaired t-tests were performed and the results are shown as boxes and whiskers (n = 25 measuring points per group; 5 eyes from 5 different animals with 5 measuring points per eye, **P < 0.01, ****P < 0.0001). Raw data available zenodo; “Fig2_HE_samples_cell_counting”.

Cellular senescence is a major mechanism of degeneration in ageing. To assess tissue ageing, we examined the expression of senescence-associated markers p16 and p21 in retinal sections from 6 months control rats and 22–24 months old rats (Fig 3). The staining occurred in retinas from rats at the age of 22 and 24 months. The controls did not show any reliable staining for p16 and p21. In old rats, we found p16 positive nuclei in the GCL and abundant positive nuclei in the INL and ONL. The staining for p21 had comparable results with positive nuclei in the GCL, INL but not in the ONL.

Fig 3. Marker of cellular senescence.

Fig 3

IHC staining of p16 (green) and p21 (orange) in sagittal sections of rat retina (200x magnification, scale bar = 100µm). Raw data available zenodo; “Fig3_samples_p16p21_staining”.

As AMD is characterized by a loss of RPE cells, which subsequently leads to photoreceptor degeneration, we examined the RPE cell density in RPE-flatmount preparations in correlation with the hormone status. The RPE cell borders were stained by phalloidin (Fig 4A). The cell density was quantified using an AI-based algorithm. As a measure of the cell density, we used the mean of size/shape parameters of RPE cells under the hypothesis that the RPE cell loss leads to larger cells to maintain the confluent monolayer of the same area or to the appearance of condensed small apoptotic cells. In all measures (mean size, min size and max size, StDev) the two estradiol deficit models showed significant higher numbers in increased and condensed cell sizes compared to the 6 months control (Figs 4B and 4C). However, in comparison between the models, sham treated rats and ovariectomized rats, we found no differences.

Fig 4. Structural changes in the RPE-layer.

Fig 4

A) Segmentation of phalloidin-stained RPE cells (200x magnification, scale bar = 50µm). Raw data available zenodo; “S2_raw_files_phalloidin_staining_Fig4” B) Segmentation from row A as violin plots. C) Changes in the morphology of the RPE-layer analyzed with the AI-supported software AIVIA (green = 6 months, orange = 22 months Sham, red = 22 months OVX). The raw data by AIVIA were compared using Mann-Whitney tests and the results are shown in graphs as mean ± SEM (6Mo; n = 58 scans out of 5 animals, 22Mo Sham; n = 46 scans out of 8 animals and 22Mo OVX; n = 80 scans out of 11 animals, ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001).

Pathways that connect decreasing systemic estradiol levels with retinal degeneration

The RPE forms the outer blood-retina barrier making it one of the eyes’ first tissues to respond to systemic estradiol fluctuations. Additionally, RPE dysfunction plays a central role in the pathogenesis of AMD. Thus, we investigated the estradiol receptor expression in RPE cells. At the level of cell physiology, we investigated RPE cells of the cell line ARPE-19 in a semi-confluent state to mimic a degenerative status. RT-PCR confirmed expression of both estradiol receptors ERα and ERβ in ARPE-19 cells (Fig 5A). To assess the functional ER activity, we stimulated ARPE-19 cells with estradiol. For stimulation, we used the concentration of 4µM that was in the range to change gene expression in ARPE-19 cells [42]. In binding assays of the isolated ERα and ERβ 1µM is in early saturation range [43] so that diffusion of extracellular estradiol to the ERs in the APRE-19 cells might need higher concentrations. Furthermore, the biologically effective estradiol concentrations result from co-stimulation with other hormones [42]. We measured differential expression of genes related to pro-inflammatory responses to estradiol stimulation by qPCR: complement factors (C3, C5, CFH), cytokines (CCL2, IL-1β, IL-8), members of the VEGF signaling system (VEGF-A, PGF) and RPEs’ survival factor EGF. Stimulation of ARPE-19 with estradiol showed among the genes of this panel only an effect for PGF and IL-1β (Fig 5B). Here, estradiol significantly increased IL-1β expression and significantly decreased PGF expression. Both results showed the functional expression of ERs. The expression of estradiol receptor could be confirmed in vivo. qPCR showed the expression of ESR1 (ERα) and ESR2 (ERβ) in the retina at the mRNA level (Fig 5C). The ER expression changed under low estradiol conditions. We found that specifically the expression of ESR2 was reduced in retinas of 22 months old ovariectomized rats. These findings suggest that estradiol depletion primarily affects ERβ activity in the RPE, potentially contributing to early AMD pathogenesis. By means of immunohistochemistry, we found ERβ positive signals in the RPE, in cells of the INL and the ganglion cells (Fig 5D). In summary, we can assume that the first effects of estradiol deficits evolve by ER deactivation in the RPE.

Fig 5. Estrogen receptors in the RPE.

Fig 5

A) Ethidium bromide gel of PCR amplicons of the receptor ERα and ERβ in ARPE-19 cells. Raw data available zenodo; “S1_raw_images_Fig5” B) Gene expression change depending on estrogen, in ARPE-19 cells (gray = ARPE-19 without estradiol; n = 28, blue = ARPE-19 + 4µM estradiol; n = 14), Mann-Whitney tests were performed and the results are presented in the diagram as mean ± SEM (***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001). C) qPCR detection of the receptors ERα and ERβ in rat RPE samples (green = 6 months; n = 6, light orange = 22 months naïve; n = 6, orange = 22 months Sham; n = 5, red = 22 months OVX; n = 5), analyzed by using t-tests and presented as boxes and whiskers (*P < 0.05). D) IHC staining of ERβ (orange), left in the inner retina (200x magnification, scale bar = 100µm), right in the RPE (400x magnification, scale bar = 50µm). Raw data available zenodo; “Fig5_samples_ERß_staining”.

Chronic cellular inflammation in the outer retina is a key factor in the etiology of AMD. If low systemic estradiol levels are associated with an increased risk of AMD, we hypothesized that estradiol must exert anti-inflammatory effects in the retina. To test this hypothesis, we conducted gene expression analysis in ARPE-19 cells under pro-inflammatory conditions comparable to that of AMD (Fig 6A). Specifically, all estradiol stimulation experiments were performed in the presence of 0.6nM TNFα, a cytokine released by monocyte-derived macrophages that induces pro-inflammatory changes in RPE cells [33,34] using the same panel of inflammation-related genes as before. Under these conditions, estradiol significantly reduced the expression of the complement factor C5 and increased the expression of PGF whereas the expression of the other genes remained unchanged.

Fig 6. Estrogen impact on inflammatory processes in the RPE.

Fig 6

A) Gene expression changes of ARPE-19 cells under inflammatory (TNFα) conditions (grey = without estradiol; n = 14, blue = + 4µM estradiol; n = 7), analyzed by Mann-Whitney tests and presented in the diagram as mean ± SEM (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01). B) Ccl2 expression level of the rat RPE depending on the estrous cycle (green = 6 months; n = 6, light orange = 22 months naïve; n = 6, orange = 22 months Sham; n = 5, red = 22 months OVX; n = 5), evaluated by Mann-Whitney tests and shown as boxes and whiskers (*P < 0.05). C) Images of the Iba1 analysis with the AI-supported software AIVIA (200x magnification, scale bar = 50µm). Raw data available zenodo; “S3_raw_files_Iba1_staining_Fig6”. D) AI-supported analysis of Iba1+ cells (n = 5 scans from 5 different animals per group). E) Counting of amoeboid Iba1+ cells (with scans from 5 animals per group with the following number of scans: 6 months; n = 53, 22 months Sham; n = 25, 22 months OVX; n = 36).

To obtain more insights from in vivo models, we performed qPCR-based gene expression analysis (Fig 6B) and quantified the invasion of mononuclear phagocytes (Iba1+ cells) in RPE/choroid flatmounts of the outer retina (Figs 6C6E)). Indeed, we found an increased level of Ccl2 expression in the 22 months old ovariectomized rats. The quantification of Iba1+ cells occurred using an AI-based software and aimed the total number of cells and the number of cells in an amoeboid morphology (Figs 6D and 6E), where the latter indicated the status of activated cells. While the total number of Iba1+ cells was similar across all groups, we observed a significant increase in amoeboid-shaped (activated) Iba1+ cells in the 22 months old ovariectomized rats. Thus, estradiol deficit potentially fosters but unlikely causes cellular inflammation in the outer retina.

Discussion

Clinical data suggest a strong correlation between serum estradiol levels and AMD risk. Our study proposes a mechanistic explanation for how estradiol deficiency may contribute to AMD pathogenesis. To investigate the impact of aging and estradiol deficiency on retinal degeneration, we used aged Lewis rats and ovariectomized Lewis rats as models. This study is the first to examine the long-term effects of aging and ovariectomy on the retina in correlation with serum gonadal hormone levels in female rats. Both biological and surgically induced estradiol deficiency resulted in the loss of ganglion cells, photoreceptors, and RPE cells in the retina. In ganglion cells, cells with nuclei in the INL, and RPE cells we found the expression of ERß. We found mild estradiol impact on cellular inflammation and that the ERβ positive cells are those that expose senescent markers with age. Hormone analysis in the rat models revealed a primary reduction in estradiol levels, accompanied by compensatory changes in other hormones, including increased progesterone, corticosterone and DHEA-S levels. Thus, our study does not show that estradiol deficiency cause AMD but increases the risk by promoting cellular inflammation, senescence and retinal degeneration in ganglion, RPE and secondary to RPE also in photoreceptor cells. However, the early menopause risk effect potentially depends on non-estradiol effects on photoreceptors.

To study the AMD risk factors of age and estradiol deficiency, we used aged Lewis rats that underwent an ovariectomy or sham surgery at the age of 8 months, to compare them and determine differences compared to 6 months old rats. The aged rats show the expected decrease in estradiol serum levels but also profound changes in other hormones compared to young rats: an increase in the levels of progesterone, corticosterone, and DHEA-S. Interestingly, the only significant difference between aged rats after sham or ovariectomy was significantly reduced level of DHEA-S in the animals after ovariectomy. In this way, our study differs from the ones of the existing literature [4450] in which the observational periods following ovariectomy were significantly shorter, lasting only a few weeks. As a result, those studies primarily focused on the acute effects of estradiol deficiency, which have limited relevance for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Furthermore, none of the studies evaluated the resulting hormone status so that the authors could only discuss estradiol deficits as cause for their observations without knowing the role of side effects. Another interesting observation was that at the age of 22 months, the two estradiol deficiency models showed almost no differences in their hormone status, indicating that biological aging resulted in a similar hormonal status as that of ovariectomy. However, DHEA-S levels were lower in the ovariectomized group. The reason for this remains unclear, but this finding underscores that ovariectomy differs from biological estradiol deficiency and does not exclusively reflect estradiol-related effects.

One major observation in the serum steroid hormone analysis was an increased progesterone level in aged rats compared to that of the young ones. Like estradiol is known in many pre-clinical studies being protective against various types of retinal damage [45,48,5154] progesterone displays the same properties [5560]. DHEA-S was also increased the estradiol deficiency models in comparison with the 6 months control. Also, DHEA-S is known as a protective factor in various neurodegenerative diseases [6164]. Thus, the upregulation of progesterone and DHEA-S might reflect a compensatory response to estradiol deficiency. When evaluating degenerative changes, we found a reduction in ganglion cells only for the ovariectomy group compared to young rats. Since the hormone profile of this group differs just by a significantly reduced level of DHEA-S compared to age-matched rats after sham surgery, this finding may support the hypothetically compensatory and protective role of DHEA-S.

The estradiol deficiency that was found in both aged groups, had concrete structural effects on the retina. We found a loss of photoreceptor cells and RPE cells. We further found cellular senescence in estradiol deficiency-induced retinal degeneration. We analyzed p16 and p21 expression in retinas of aged rats that are cumulative senescence markers: p16 (cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A) and p21 (CDK-inhibitor 1) [65,66]. Both are involved in the cell cycle control and their activities depend strongly on the context: tumorigenesis, development or ageing [65,66]. As the 6 months control showed no specific staining, we found abundant p16 and p21 expression in aged rats. P16 was detectable in all nuclear layers, while p21 occurred just in ganglion cells and cells of the INL, but not in photoreceptors, which also showed no expression of the ERß. As we found a similar reduced level of serum estradiol and photoreceptor degeneration in ovariectomized rats and biologically aged animals compared to young rats, we suggest specific effects in the early menopause situation that do not depend on the reduction of systemic estradiol.

Grossly, this pattern seems to correlate with the estradiol receptor (ERs) expression. RT-PCR confirmed the expression of ERα and ERβ in RPE cells in vitro, and functional analysis revealed estradiol-induced changes in gene expression. These observations are supported by other studies also at the protein and functional level in the same RPE cell line but also in in vivo models [53,6770]. qPCR showed in the in vivo retina the expression of ERα and ERβ. For further analysis of the ER protein expression and localization, we focused on ERβ because ERβ was found to exert protective effects in retinal [53,6972] and brain injury [73,74] but also because ERβ was downregulated in the ovariectomized animals. The latter observation suggests a potential patho-physiological effect because estradiol deficiency potentially reduces neuroprotection by the molecule itself plus by reduced estradiol sensitivity of the cells. Immunohistochemistry shows that ERβ is expressed in the aged retina and in the aged ovariectomized retina in ganglion cells, cells with nuclei in the INL and in the RPE but not in the photoreceptors. This pattern corresponds with the existing literature [53,71,75,76]. The cells with nuclei in the INL might possibly be Müller cells [77] that are also known to express ERs. The degeneration of photoreceptors, which lack ER expression and only show the p16 senescence marker, is likely secondary to RPE cell loss—a process that is also implicated in AMD pathogenesis.

Our study and also literature showed the expression of ERs in ganglion cells and that estradiol deficiency leads to ganglion cell loss. It is to mention that so far, the estradiol dependent loss of ganglion cells was reported as effects in observation periods up to 30 days [44,45,47,48,78,79]. In contrast, our data show ganglion cell loss after 22 months only in ovariectomized rat retinas, but not in age-matched sham-treated animals. These findings suggest that biological estradiol deficiency alone does not drive ganglion cell loss; rather, ovariectomy-related factors, such as reduced serum DHEA-S levels, may contribute to this phenomenon. In contrast, RPE cell loss, indicated by the increase of large-size and condensed RPE cells, occurred in both aged and ovariectomized rats, indicating that ER signaling plays a direct role in RPE survival. This conclusion would describe a potential specific pathway for the biological estradiol deficiency being a risk factor for AMD. Interestingly, the photoreceptor loss, that might be secondary to RPE loss, was stronger in the ovariectomized group than in sham-group. Also, here an estradiol-independent, potentially DHEA-S-dependent mechanism might lead to additional photoreceptor cells loss in the ovariectomy model. This observation is of significance for AMD. Two independent studies found an association of reduced DHEA-S serum levels and an increased prevalence for AMD [80,81]. It is possible that photoreceptors depend on the protective effects of DHEA-S and that reduction of DHEA-S in the ovariectomized rats additionally promotes the photoreceptor loss. Vice versa our data helps to understand the association between DHEA-S levels and AMD. However, the role of DHEA-S in the retina is so far unexplored.

To investigate how changes in gonadal hormone status contribute to retinal degeneration, we examined two potential mechanisms: local cellular inflammation and cellular senescence. It is well established that chronic cellular inflammation in the outer retina is an important mechanism in the pathology of AMD [35,82]. This inflammatory reaction centers around the invasion and activation of mononuclear phagocytes, an Iba1+ cell type that includes retinal microglia and monocytes from the blood stream. Due to their sensitivity to estradiol, monocytes influence the expression of several inflammatory factors depending on estradiol level [83]. The accumulation of mononuclear phagocytes requires the loss of barrier function by the RPE and a change of the RPEs’ immunogenic phenotype towards an immune stimulatory phenotype [26]. One mechanism that helps monocytes to overcome the RPE barrier is the secretion of TNFα [33,34]. The observation that ERβ stimulation in monocytes increases the expression of TNFα [83] further supports a hypothesis for an ERβ – TNFα axis. Thus, we investigated in vitro the effects of estradiol on the RPEs’ gene expression in the presence of TNFα. Among the AMD-relevant inflammatory genes, we found that estradiol reduced the expression of complement factor C5 while increasing PGF expression. Thus, we must conclude that the estradiol deficiency would lead to an upregulation of C5 and a downregulation of PGF expression. Increased activity of the complement system and accumulation of terminal complement complex in the AMD patients’ retina occurs from early on and would explain the risk increasing effect of estradiol deficiency. PGF is a factor of tissue regeneration, and its downregulation would also be a factor that increases AMD risk. However, the estradiol effect on the gene expression is rather weak as only two genes appeared to be differently regulated. In vivo analysis showed in the RPE/choroid complex an upregulation of Ccl2 (Mcp1 = monocyte chemoattractant protein-1) [35,84,85] in AMD or AMD models, and exclusively in ovariectomized rats too. In this way low estradiol levels in the serum additionally support monocyte accumulation/activation in the ovariectomized rat retinas. Counting Iba+ cells in RPE flatmount preparations, we did not see a difference in the number of cells between all three animal groups. Already at the age of 6 months albino rats display a certain pro-inflammatory environment in the outer retina because the RPE expresses already the pro-inflammatory transcription factor FoxP3 [85]. However, again just the ovariectomized rats showed an increased number of amoeboid Iba1+ cells, a morphologic phenotype that indicates the activated status of mononuclear phagocytes. In summary, we saw a stimulatory impact on cellular inflammation in correlation with estradiol deficiency that supports other ongoing age-dependent mechanisms. Another reason for that observation might be the time point of investigation with 22 months. It is likely that at other timepoints in biological ageing or after ovariectomy might represent much stronger phases of cellular immune activity. Again, the upregulation of progesterone or DHEA-S downregulation might create confounders that attenuate the estradiol effect.

In summary, our findings indicate that biological aging and surgically induced early menopause result in a more complex pattern of gonadal hormone alterations than estradiol deficiency alone. This situation in combination with ageing leads to structural degenerative changes in the retina accompanied with estradiol deficit associated promotion of cellular inflammation and senescence. The estradiol-dependent promotion of cellular senescence seems to be more pronounced than that of cellular inflammation. However, rather than initiating a direct pathological cascade leading to AMD, estradiol deficiency likely acts as a modulator that increases susceptibility to retinal degeneration. Since early menopause is a recognized risk factor for AMD, the observed estradiol-dependent effects align with other known risk factors, such as complement system overactivation. Furthermore, the low penetrance of estradiol deficiency in AMD pathogenesis may be explained by compensatory upregulation of protective hormones, such as progesterone and DHEA-S, which may partially mitigate the degenerative effects of estradiol depletion. Concerning the photoreceptor degeneration and development of cellular senescence, the early menopause-dependent increase in AMD risk relies on other effects than low estradiol levels.

Supporting information

S1 Raw Images. Fig5. Original images of the gel electrophoresis.

(PDF)

pone.0340477.s001.pdf (1.8MB, pdf)
S2 Raw Files. Phalloidin staining Fig4 Original images used for the RPE segmentation by AIVIA, shown in Figure 4.

(PDF)

pone.0340477.s002.pdf (908.6KB, pdf)
S3 Raw Files. Iba1 staining Fig6 Original images used for the segmentation of Iba1 positive cells by AIVIA, shown in Figure 6.

(PDF)

pone.0340477.s003.pdf (513.1KB, pdf)
S4 File. Fig3 negative control. Negative control of the staining of Fig3.

(TIF)

pone.0340477.s004.tif (5.9MB, tif)
S5 File. Fig3 peripheral. Staining of Fig3 in the peripheral retina.

(TIF)

pone.0340477.s005.tif (7.7MB, tif)
S6 Table. Antibody Registry beta ID Tab6 Tab7. Additional information on the antibodies used, including ID from “Antibody Registry beta”.

(PDF)

pone.0340477.s006.pdf (90.5KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to Prof. Dr. Clemens Kirschbaum from Dresden LABservice GmbH for performing the ELISA and LC-MS/MS analyses of hormones in rat serum.

We extend our special thanks to:

• Sergej Skosyrski for conducting the qPCR analyses of rat RPE samples,

• Yang Fang for her contributions to the immunohistochemical staining of the flatmount samples,

• Nikolaos Mylonas for his work on the immunohistochemical staining of the ERβ receptor in sagittal sections.

Additionally, we sincerely appreciate the Central Biobank Charité (ZeBanC) for their excellent collaboration in sectioning paraffin-embedded eyes and performing hematoxylin-eosin (HE) staining of sagittal sections.

Data Availability

All raw data files are available from the zenodo database (accession number https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17464743).

Funding Statement

The work was supported by governmental funding agency “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” DFG under the registration number of RE 3924/2-1 (OS; https://www.dfg.de/) and eye research specialized foundation Dr. Werner Jackstädt-Stiftung with no registration number (IMP; https://www.jackstaedt-stiftung.de/) and Charités’ inhouse grant program to foster high-quality animal research strategies under the name “Charité 3R Replace-Reduce-Refine” (DP; https://charite3r.charite.de/) with no specific registration number. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Blindness GBD, Vision Impairment C, Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease S. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(2):e144–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health O. World report on vision. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Congdon N, O’Colmain B, Klaver CCW, Klein R, Muñoz B, Friedman DS, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(4):477–85. doi: 10.1001/archopht.122.4.477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Blasiak J, Petrovski G, Veréb Z, Facskó A, Kaarniranta K. Oxidative stress, hypoxia, and autophagy in the neovascular processes of age-related macular degeneration. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:768026. doi: 10.1155/2014/768026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chen M, Xu H. Parainflammation, chronic inflammation, and age-related macular degeneration. J Leukoc Biol. 2015;98(5):713–25. doi: 10.1189/jlb.3RI0615-239R [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Schmidt-Erfurth U, Chong V, Loewenstein A, Larsen M, Souied E, Schlingemann R, et al. Guidelines for the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration by the European Society of Retina Specialists (EURETINA). Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(9):1144–67. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Clemons TE, Milton RC, Klein R, Seddon JM, Ferris FL 3rd, Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. Risk factors for the incidence of Advanced Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) AREDS report no. 19. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(4):533–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.10.047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. Risk factors associated with age-related macular degeneration. A case-control study in the age-related eye disease study: Age-Related Eye Disease Study Report Number 3. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(12):2224–32. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00409-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Smith W, Mitchell P, Wang JJ. Gender, oestrogen, hormone replacement and age-related macular degeneration: results from the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1997;25 Suppl 1:S13-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.1997.tb01745.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kaarniranta K, Machalińska A, Veréb Z, Salminen A, Petrovski G, Kauppinen A. Estrogen signalling in the pathogenesis of age-related macular degeneration. Curr Eye Res. 2015;40(2):226–33. doi: 10.3109/02713683.2014.925933 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zetterberg M. Age-related eye disease and gender. Maturitas. 2016;83:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Risk factors for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The Eye Disease Case-Control Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110(12):1701–8. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1992.01080240041025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Feskanich D, Cho E, Schaumberg DA, Colditz GA, Hankinson SE. Menopausal and reproductive factors and risk of age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(4):519–24. doi: 10.1001/archopht.126.4.519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mangiamele LA, Gomez JR, Curtis NJ, Thompson RR. GPER/GPR30, a membrane estrogen receptor, is expressed in the brain and retina of a social fish (Carassius auratus) and colocalizes with isotocin. J Comp Neurol. 2017;525(2):252–70. doi: 10.1002/cne.24056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Marin-Castaño ME, Elliot SJ, Potier M, Karl M, Striker LJ, Striker GE, et al. Regulation of estrogen receptors and MMP-2 expression by estrogens in human retinal pigment epithelium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(1):50–9. doi: 10.1167/iovs.01-1276 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Patnaik JL, Lynch AM, Wagner BD, Echalier EL, Kohrt WM, Mathias MT, et al. Hormone Therapy as a Protective Factor for Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2020;27(2):148–54. doi: 10.1080/09286586.2019.1701041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pfeilschifter J, Köditz R, Pfohl M, Schatz H. Changes in proinflammatory cytokine activity after menopause. Endocr Rev. 2002;23(1):90–119. doi: 10.1210/edrv.23.1.0456 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tani A, Yasui T, Matsui S, Kato T, Kunimi K, Tsuchiya N, et al. Different circulating levels of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and interleukin-8 during the menopausal transition. Cytokine. 2013;62(1):86–90. doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2013.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Faubion L, White TA, Peterson BJ, Geske JR, LeBrasseur NK, Schafer MJ, et al. Effect of menopausal hormone therapy on proteins associated with senescence and inflammation. Physiol Rep. 2020;8(16):e14535. doi: 10.14814/phy2.14535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Karim R, Stanczyk FZ, Hodis HN, Cushman M, Lobo RA, Hwang J, et al. Associations between markers of inflammation and physiological and pharmacological levels of circulating sex hormones in postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2010;17(4):785–90. doi: 10.1097/gme.0b013e3181cc50b2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yasui T, Saijo A, Uemura H, Matsuzaki T, Tsuchiya N, Yuzurihara M, et al. Effects of oral and transdermal estrogen therapies on circulating cytokines and chemokines in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy. Eur J Endocrinol. 2009;161(2):267–73. doi: 10.1530/EJE-09-0063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Békési G, Kakucs R, Varbiro S, Feher J, Pazmany T, Magyar Z, et al. Induced myeloperoxidase activity and related superoxide inhibition during hormone replacement therapy. BJOG. 2001;108(5):474–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00108.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sanchez-Rodriguez MA, Zacarias-Flores M, Castrejon-Delgado L, Ruiz-Rodriguez AK, Mendoza-Nunez VM. Effects of hormone therapy on oxidative stress in postmenopausal women with metabolic syndrome. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(9). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Canonica J, Mehanna C, Bonnard B, Jonet L, Gelize E, Jais J-P, et al. Effect of acute and chronic aldosterone exposure on the retinal pigment epithelium-choroid complex in rodents. Exp Eye Res. 2019;187:107747. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2019.107747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Canonica J, Zhao M, Favez T, Gelize E, Jonet L, Kowalczuk L. Pathogenic effects of mineralocorticoid pathway activation in retinal pigment epithelium. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(17). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Shechter R, London A, Schwartz M. Orchestrated leukocyte recruitment to immune-privileged sites: absolute barriers versus educational gates. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13(3):206–18. doi: 10.1038/nri3391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mochizuki M, Sugita S, Kamoi K. Immunological homeostasis of the eye. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2013;33:10–27. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kaarniranta K, Blasiak J, Liton P, Boulton M, Klionsky DJ, Sinha D. Autophagy in age-related macular degeneration. Autophagy. 2023;19(2):388–400. doi: 10.1080/15548627.2022.2069437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ben-Shabat S, Parish CA, Hashimoto M, Liu J, Nakanishi K, Sparrow JR. Fluorescent pigments of the retinal pigment epithelium and age-related macular degeneration. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2001;11(12):1533–40. doi: 10.1016/s0960-894x(01)00314-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rózanowski B, Cuenco J, Davies S, Shamsi FA, Zadło A, Dayhaw-Barker P, et al. The phototoxicity of aged human retinal melanosomes. Photochem Photobiol. 2008;84(3):650–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.2007.00259.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shamsi FA, Boulton M. Inhibition of RPE lysosomal and antioxidant activity by the age pigment lipofuscin. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(12):3041–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sparrow JR, Boulton M. RPE lipofuscin and its role in retinal pathobiology. Exp Eye Res. 2005;80(5):595–606. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2005.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mathis T, Housset M, Eandi C, Beguier F, Touhami S, Reichman S, et al. Activated monocytes resist elimination by retinal pigment epithelium and downregulate their OTX2 expression via TNF-α. Aging Cell. 2017;16(1):173–82. doi: 10.1111/acel.12540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Touhami S, Beguier F, Augustin S, Charles-Messance H, Vignaud L, Nandrot EF, et al. Chronic exposure to tumor necrosis factor alpha induces retinal pigment epithelium cell dedifferentiation. J Neuroinflammation. 2018;15(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s12974-018-1106-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yu C, Roubeix C, Sennlaub F, Saban DR. Microglia versus Monocytes: Distinct Roles in Degenerative Diseases of the Retina. Trends Neurosci. 2020;43(6):433–49. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2020.03.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Camelo S, Calippe B, Lavalette S, Dominguez E, Hur J, Devevre E, et al. Thinning of the RPE and choroid associated with T lymphocyte recruitment in aged and light-challenged mice. Mol Vis. 2015;21:1051–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Klettner A, Roider J. Retinal pigment epithelium expressed toll-like receptors and their potential role in age-related macular degeneration. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(16). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sophocleous A, Idris AI. Ovariectomy/orchiectomy in rodents. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1914:261–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Künzel SE, Pompös I-M, Flesch LTM, Frentzel DP, Knecht VA, Winkler S, et al. Exploring the Impact of Saccharin on Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Comprehensive Study in Patients and Mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2024;65(4):5. doi: 10.1167/iovs.65.4.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sekulic A, Herr SM, Mulfaul K, Pompös I-M, Winkler S, Dietrich C, et al. Factor-H-related protein 1 (FHR1), a promotor of para-inflammation in age-related macular degeneration. J Neuroinflammation. 2025;22(1):173. doi: 10.1186/s12974-025-03499-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Davids AM, Pompos IM, Kociok N, Heufelder J, Skosyrski S, Reichhart N. Radiation retinopathy: microangiopathy-inflammation-neurodegeneration. Cells. 2025;14(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sone H, Okuda Y, Kawakami Y, Kondo S, Hanatani M, Matsuo K, et al. Progesterone induces vascular endothelial growth factor on retinal pigment epithelial cells in culture. Life Sci. 1996;59(1):21–5. doi: 10.1016/0024-3205(96)00253-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.He S, Li X, Ma J-Z, Yang Y, Luo S, Xie X-D, et al. The potential endocrine disruption mechanism of anthelmintic drug niclosamide by activating estrogen receptors and estrogen-related receptors. Toxicology. 2021;457:152805. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2021.152805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Olakowska E, Rodak P, Pacwa A, Machowicz J, Machna B, Lewin-Kowalik J, et al. Surgical menopause impairs retinal conductivity and worsens prognosis in an acute model of rat optic neuropathy. Cells. 2022;11(19):3062. doi: 10.3390/cells11193062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zhu C, Wang S, Wang B, Du F, Hu C, Li H, et al. 17β-Estradiol up-regulates Nrf2 via PI3K/AKT and estrogen receptor signaling pathways to suppress light-induced degeneration in rat retina. Neuroscience. 2015;304:328–39. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.07.057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Deschênes MC, Descovich D, Moreau M, Granger L, Kuchel GA, Mikkola TS, et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy increases retinal blood flow and protects the retinal nerve fiber layer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(5):2587–600. doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-3710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zhou X, Li F, Ge J, Sarkisian SR Jr, Tomita H, Zaharia A, et al. Retinal ganglion cell protection by 17-beta-estradiol in a mouse model of inherited glaucoma. Dev Neurobiol. 2007;67(5):603–16. doi: 10.1002/dneu.20373 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Nakazawa T, Takahashi H, Shimura M. Estrogen has a neuroprotective effect on axotomized RGCs through ERK signal transduction pathway. Brain Res. 2006;1093(1):141–9. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Rakic J-M, Lambert V, Deprez M, Foidart J-M, Noël A, Munaut C. Estrogens reduce the expression of YKL-40 in the retina: implications for eye and joint diseases. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(4):1740–6. doi: 10.1167/iovs.02-0775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Pacifici R, Brown C, Puscheck E, Friedrich E, Slatopolsky E, Maggio D, et al. Effect of surgical menopause and estrogen replacement on cytokine release from human blood mononuclear cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;88(12):5134–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.12.5134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Xiong Y-C, Chen T, Yang X-B, Deng C-L, Ning Q-L, Quan R, et al. 17β-Oestradiol Attenuates the Photoreceptor Apoptosis in Mice with Retinitis Pigmentosa by Regulating N-myc Downstream Regulated Gene 2 Expression. Neuroscience. 2021;452:280–94. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Astarita C, D’Angelo-Maansson B, Massaro-Giordano M, Alba MP, Boffo S, Macchi I, et al. Effect of sex steroid hormone fluctuations in the pathophysiology of male-retinal pigment epithelial cells. J Cell Physiol. 2018;233(9):6965–74. doi: 10.1002/jcp.26486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Cascio C, Deidda I, Russo D, Guarneri P. The estrogenic retina: The potential contribution to healthy aging and age-related neurodegenerative diseases of the retina. Steroids. 2015;103:31–41. doi: 10.1016/j.steroids.2015.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Chen X-F, Zhang M-N, Jiang C-H, Guo W, Liu H-Z, Wei S-H. Estrogen attenuates VEGF-initiated blood-retina barrier breakdown in male rats. Horm Metab Res. 2011;43(9):614–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1283149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Roche SL, Kutsyr O, Cuenca N, Cotter TG. Norgestrel, a Progesterone Analogue, Promotes Significant Long-Term Neuroprotection of Cone Photoreceptors in a Mouse Model of Retinal Disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019;60(8):3221–35. doi: 10.1167/iovs.19-27246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pardue MT, Allen RS. Neuroprotective strategies for retinal disease. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2018;65:50–76. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Nuzzi R, Scalabrin S, Becco A, Panzica G. Gonadal Hormones and Retinal Disorders: A Review. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:66. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Wyse-Jackson AC, Roche SL, Ruiz-Lopez AM, Moloney JN, Byrne AM, Cotter TG. Progesterone analogue protects stressed photoreceptors via bFGF-mediated calcium influx. Eur J Neurosci. 2016;44(12):3067–79. doi: 10.1111/ejn.13445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Jackson ACW, Roche SL, Byrne AM, Ruiz-Lopez AM, Cotter TG. Progesterone receptor signalling in retinal photoreceptor neuroprotection. J Neurochem. 2016;136(1):63–77. doi: 10.1111/jnc.13388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Doonan F, O’Driscoll C, Kenna P, Cotter TG. Enhancing survival of photoreceptor cells in vivo using the synthetic progestin Norgestrel. J Neurochem. 2011;118(5):915–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2011.07354.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Vieira-Marques C, Arbo BD, Ruiz-Palmero I, Ortiz-Rodriguez A, Ghorbanpoor S, Kucharski LC, et al. Dehydroepiandrosterone protects male and female hippocampal neurons and neuroblastoma cells from glucose deprivation. Brain Res. 2016;1644:176–82. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2016.05.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Shirvani M, Nouri F, Sarihi A, Habibi P, Mohammadi M. Neuroprotective Effects of Dehydroepiandrosterone and Hericium erinaceus in Scopolamine-induced Alzheimer’s Diseases-like Symptoms in Male Rats. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2024;82(3):2853–64. doi: 10.1007/s12013-024-01400-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Liou C-J, Yang C-M, Lee T-H, Liu P-S, Hsieh H-L. Neuroprotective Effects of Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate Through Inhibiting Expression of Matrix Metalloproteinase-9 from Bradykinin-Challenged Astroglia. Mol Neurobiol. 2019;56(1):736–47. doi: 10.1007/s12035-018-1125-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Arbo BD, Bennetti F, Ribeiro MF. Astrocytes as a target for neuroprotection: Modulation by progesterone and dehydroepiandrosterone. Prog Neurobiol. 2016;144:27–47. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2016.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Wang B, Han J, Elisseeff JH, Demaria M. The senescence-associated secretory phenotype and its physiological and pathological implications. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2024;25(12):958–78. doi: 10.1038/s41580-024-00727-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Yan J, Chen S, Yi Z, Zhao R, Zhu J, Ding S, et al. The role of p21 in cellular senescence and aging-related diseases. Mol Cells. 2024;47(11):100113. doi: 10.1016/j.mocell.2024.100113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Elliot S, Catanuto P, Fernandez P, Espinosa-Heidmann D, Karl M, Korach K, et al. Subtype specific estrogen receptor action protects against changes in MMP-2 activation in mouse retinal pigmented epithelial cells. Exp Eye Res. 2008;86(4):653–60. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2008.01.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Ogueta SB, Schwartz SD, Yamashita CK, Farber DB. Estrogen receptor in the human eye: influence of gender and age on gene expression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40(9):1906–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Paimela T, Hyttinen JMT, Viiri J, Ryhänen T, Karvonen MK, Unkila M, et al. Influence of selective estrogen receptor modulators on interleukin-6 expression in human retinal pigment epithelial cells (ARPE-19). Eur J Pharmacol. 2010;640(1–3):219–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2010.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Elliot SJ, Catanuto P, Espinosa-Heidmann DG, Fernandez P, Hernandez E, Saloupis P, et al. Estrogen receptor beta protects against in vivo injury in RPE cells. Exp Eye Res. 2010;90(1):10–6. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2009.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Munaut C, Lambert V, Noël A, Frankenne F, Deprez M, Foidart JM, et al. Presence of oestrogen receptor type beta in human retina. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85(7):877–82. doi: 10.1136/bjo.85.7.877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.de Voogd S, Wolfs RCW, Jansonius NM, Uitterlinden AG, Pols HAP, Hofman A, et al. Estrogen receptors alpha and beta and the risk of open-angle glaucoma: the Rotterdam Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(1):110–4. doi: 10.1001/archopht.126.1.110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Johann S, Beyer C. Neuroprotection by gonadal steroid hormones in acute brain damage requires cooperation with astroglia and microglia. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2013;137:71–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Cue L, Diaz F, Briegel KJ, Patel HH, Raval AP. Periodic Estrogen Receptor-Beta Activation: A Novel Approach to Prevent Ischemic Brain Damage. Neurochem Res. 2015;40(10):2009–17. doi: 10.1007/s11064-014-1346-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Galindez SM, Keightley A, Koulen P. Differential distribution of steroid hormone signaling networks in the human choroid-retinal pigment epithelial complex. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;22(1):406. doi: 10.1186/s12886-022-02585-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Kobayashi K, Kobayashi H, Ueda M, Honda Y. Estrogen receptor expression in bovine and rat retinas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39(11):2105–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Li C, Tang Y, Li F, Turner S, Li K, Zhou X, et al. 17beta-estradiol (betaE2) protects human retinal Müller cell against oxidative stress in vitro: evaluation of its effects on gene expression by cDNA microarray. Glia. 2006;53(4):392–400. doi: 10.1002/glia.20291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Kapic A, Zaman K, Nguyen V, Neagu GC, Sumien N, Prokai L, et al. The Prodrug DHED Delivers 17β-Estradiol into the Retina for Protection of Retinal Ganglion Cells and Preservation of Visual Function in an Animal Model of Glaucoma. Cells. 2024;13(13):1126. doi: 10.3390/cells13131126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Koebele SV, Bimonte-Nelson HA. Modeling menopause: The utility of rodents in translational behavioral endocrinology research. Maturitas. 2016;87:5–17. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.01.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Tamer C, Oksuz H, Söğüt S. Serum dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate level in age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(2):212–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.09.054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Liu Z-Y, Zhang H, Sun X-L, Liu J-Y. Causal association between metabolites and age-related macular degeneration: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study. Hereditas. 2024;161(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s41065-024-00356-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Uemura A, Fruttiger M, D’Amore PA, De Falco S, Joussen AM, Sennlaub F, et al. VEGFR1 signaling in retinal angiogenesis and microinflammation. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2021;84:100954. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2021.100954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Brundin PMA, Landgren B-M, Fjällström P, Shamekh MM, Gustafsson J-Å, Johansson AF, et al. Expression of Sex Hormone Receptor and Immune Response Genes in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells During the Menstrual Cycle. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:721813. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.721813 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Sennlaub F, Auvynet C, Calippe B, Lavalette S, Poupel L, Hu SJ, et al. CCR2(+) monocytes infiltrate atrophic lesions in age-related macular disease and mediate photoreceptor degeneration in experimental subretinal inflammation in Cx3cr1 deficient mice. EMBO Mol Med. 2013;5(11):1775–93. doi: 10.1002/emmm.201302692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Alfaar AS, Stürzbecher L, Diedrichs-Möhring M, Lam M, Roubeix C, Ritter J, et al. FoxP3 expression by retinal pigment epithelial cells: transcription factor with potential relevance for the pathology of age-related macular degeneration. J Neuroinflammation. 2022;19(1):260. doi: 10.1186/s12974-022-02620-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohd Akbar Bhat

16 Sep 2025

The authors are requested to incorporate all the suggested revisions from the reviewers and thoroughly review and refine the manuscript before submission

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 31 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohd Akbar Bhat, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories .

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG Dr. Werner Jackstädt Stiftung Stiftung Charité in cooperation with Einstein Foundation Berlin].

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “Evaluation of risk-promoting effects for age-related macular degeneration by estradiol” describes how biological or ovariectomy-induced estradiol deficiency promotes mechanisms that lead to age-related macular degeneration. Further, the authors documented, the estradiol-dependent promotion of cellular senescence is more pronounced than that of cellular inflammation. Importantly, the authors documented, the estradiol deficiency probably acts as a modulator that increases susceptibility to retinal degeneration rather than initiating a direct pathological cascade leading to age-related macular degeneration. Overall, the manuscript is well written with few errors. I have one major concern, although the authors have shown nice images of hematoxylin and eosin staining, exhibiting photoreceptor degeneration and a reduction in the ganglion cell nuclei count in ovariectomized rats. I suggest performing immunohistochemical analysis employing rod and cone photoreceptor antibodies to further confirm the photoreceptor degeneration. A few minor comments are below.

1. Introduction section, line 96. Incorporate a reference related to hormone therapy during menopause.

2. Materials and methods section, line 143. Write the confluency of the cell culture as a percentage.

3. Materials and methods section, line 148. It should be “The primer sequences are provided in Table 1.”

4. Materials and methods section, line 150. Italicize the gene name throughout the manuscript, including the table.

5. Figure legends 2, 3, and 5. Write the magnification of the images captured.

Reviewer #2: This is a well-written and carefully executed study that investigates the contribution of estradiol deficiency to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) risk, with a focus on retinal degeneration, inflammation, and cellular senescence. The authors employed two rat models: naturally aged Lewis rats (22 months) to mimic biological estradiol decline and rats ovariectomized at 8 months, analyzed at 22 months, to model early menopause. Six-month-old rats served as controls. Methods included serum hormone analysis (ELISA, LC-MS/MS), qPCR for gene expression, immunohistochemistry for protein localization, AI-based image analysis for retinal cell density and inflammatory markers, and in vitro assays using ARPE-19 cells to assess ER function.

The study provides compelling evidence that estradiol deficiency does not directly cause AMD but promotes retinal degeneration, inflammation, and senescence, thereby increasing AMD risk. Importantly, the data also point toward broader hormonal influences, with DHEA-S potentially contributing to photoreceptor degeneration in early menopause. While the manuscript is strong, several limitations should be addressed to strengthen its conclusions:

Comment 1: The manuscript provides convincing structural evidence of retinal alterations; however, the absence of functional vision assessment (e.g., ERG) limits translational impact. Electrophysiological characterization would determine whether hormonal deficiencies result in measurable visual dysfunction, thereby enhancing clinical relevance to AMD progression.

Comment 2: The link between estradiol deficiency and p16/p21-driven senescence in ERβ-expressing retinal populations is compelling but requires deeper mechanistic insight. Single-cell RNA sequencing of retinal cell types (RGCs, INL cells, and RPE) from estradiol-deficient models could delineate cell type–specific senescence programs.

Comment 3: The study associates global hormone status (progesterone, corticosterone, DHEA-S, alongside estradiol) with retinal degeneration, inflammation, and senescence. However, the individual contributions of progesterone or corticosterone to the observed phenotype remain undefined. Clarifying their specific roles in retinal degeneration, inflammation, or senescence markers would strengthen the conclusions.

Comment 4: The use of 6-month-old rats as controls for both 22-month-old (aged) and ovariectomized 22-month-old rats may not adequately account for age-related changes independent of estradiol deficiency. An age-matched control group would better isolate the effects of estradiol loss from normal aging.

Comment 5: The authors propose that photoreceptor degeneration and cellular senescence in ovariectomized rats may occur through ERβ-independent mechanisms, potentially mediated by DHEA-S reduction. However, this interpretation lacks direct experimental support. Additional validation—such as DHEA-S supplementation studies or downstream pathway analyses—would provide mechanistic clarity and strengthen claims about non-estradiol hormonal influences on AMD risk.

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, authors have utilized two different rat models to study estradiol deficiency-related changes that could potentially be associated with AMD. Some of the information provided in the abstract (line 47-48) was not seen in the manuscript, please remove that or else add the data in the manuscript or supplemental.

Authors are requested to address the following issues:

1. Methods section is poorly written: improper structure and missing information.

It should be structurally written method-wise along with #catalogue, brand information (wherever necessary).

Line 189-191: Briefly mention RNA isolation from RPE/choroid eye cups with suitable reference. State clearly if retina was removed or included in lysate preparation for RNA isolation/qPCR.

Line 218-219: RPE flat mount preparation is not similar to that of sample preparation for RNA isolation, as written by authors. State the flat mount procedure briefly and provide suitable reference for the method used. Not sure which method they have referred to, but I do not think 12-hour long permeabilization is recommended.

2. Statistical analysis: Why the authors did not use two-way ANOVA, since age is another parameter that needs to be addressed while comparing 6mo control vs 22mo naïve, Sham and OVX groups.

3. Use rat gene nomenclature throughout the manuscript.

4. Results section: Needs structure.

Fig. 2A: The ONL nuclei reduction seen in 22mo old rats vs 6mo control is probably due to aging (as reported earlier: INL, ONL thinning happens normally with aging), but what is surprising is the reduced thickness of the whole retina (especially INL) in 6mo old rats as compared to 22mo-old Sham rats. Explain.

Additionally, considering the significant expression of estrogen receptors in INL, I am not sure why INL quantification was not performed in these groups?

Fig2A (6mo, RPE): shows a huge white gap between IS/OS. Is this gap normal? Replace with a representative image.

Mention scale bar in legends.

5. Fig 2B: Since serum estradiol levels did not show significant change (in fact an increased pattern was seen in Fig 1C), what is the reason for the striking change in GCL and ONL nuclei? Explain in text.

6. Results: Fig 3, Does extreme left panel show merged image, please mention. Low quality images, replace with better resolution and higher magnification images.

In the abstract authors have mentioned more p16-positive photoreceptors were seen in 22mo OVX rats compared with Sham (line 46-48). Did the authors perform p16/p21-staining on 22mo OVX rats to see if estradiol deficiency induces more cellular senescence? If not, remove this section from abstract/discussion.

7. Line 294: ‘…RPE cell density in retinal flat mounts.’ Were these (Fig 4A) retinal or RPE flat mounts? State clearly.

8. Fig 4A: Add original phalloidin staining of these respective RPE regions above the segmentation panel.

The RPE flat mounts analyzed here (Fig 4A-B) represent which region: central, equatorial or peripheral? This is important since the RPE size/shape varies with different region. So, all three images compared here should be from same region. Add this important information in figure and legends.

9. Fig 4B: Increase text size of X-/Y-axes legends, too small to comment anything on this panel.

Apart from mean area, authors should add shape parameters like solidity, extent/eccentricity etc. Fig 4 legends: correct ‘PRE’ typo.

10. Line 332-334: Add graphical analysis of fluorescence intensity for Fig 5D (with sufficient N number). Replace with higher resolution (Fig 5B-D) and higher magnification images (for inner retina panel).

Scale bar info in legends seems incorrect for RPE panel.

11. Line 353: mention dose/duration for TNF-alpha treatment.

12. Fig 5B and 6A: Why the N number for Arpe19+estradiol were so low (almost half) as compared to control group? Estradiol group has a huge variation that questions the findings.

Where is the vehicle group for the in-vitro assay? Did the authors carry out validation of estradiol treatment in Arpe19 cells?

13. Add the transcriptional marker changes (RPE lysate) in different rat groups.

14. Line 356-357: It’s hard to say this. Not sure the increase/decrease seen in C5 and PGF are due to huge variation. Authors could resolve this by increasing the N number (for Estradiol group) and keeping N number same in both groups.

15. Same thing goes with IBA-1+ cell analysis (Fig 6D,E: in figures panel); huge variation.

16. Fig 6C: Macrophages are usually absent in the subretinal space unless in pathogenic state.

Considering Fig 6C: IBA-1+ cell IHC on RPE flat mounts, it is concerning that the 6mo old control rat showed large number of macrophages. This questions the health state of the 6mo control rat, which further questions the rest of the analysis.

Fig 6 legends: Correct 6C,D,E text information as per figure.

Add normal IHC images of IBA-1+ staining above AIVIA-based images.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: ZEESHAN AHMAD

Reviewer #3: Yes: Kiran Bora

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 9;21(3):e0340477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0340477.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


6 Nov 2025

In General

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

We have checked our manuscript for PlosOnes’ style requirements so that it now should fit into those.

2. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards

We are using Zenodo as repository and have now loaded up all primary data sets. These data include supplemental files S1 to S3 with raw images showing original images of gel electrophoresis of Fig. 5, raw images used for AI based image analysis of Fig. 4 and 6, negative controls of the p16 and p21 staining of Fig. 3 and a table with the official antibody ID from Antibody Registry beta.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG Dr. Werner Jackstädt Stiftung Stiftung Charité in cooperation with Einstein Foundation Berlin].

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We have included the funding acknowledgment statement in to the cover letter with the required detailed information.

5. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Along with our raw data, we have uploaded the file "S1_raw_images_Fig5" to zenodo, which shows the original images of the gel electrophoresis.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: In the published article, supporting information files are accessed only through a hyperlink attached to the captions. For this reason, you must list captions at the end of your manuscript file. You may include a caption within the supporting information file itself, as long as that caption is also provided in the manuscript file. Do not submit a separate caption file. Captions for supplemental data are added to the end of the manuscript.

Supporting material were now added, one for the request of gel demonstrations but also by suggestions of the reviewers. We uploaded these supplemental files into our repositorium. The file names and a short description of their content is added at the end of the manuscript. Furthermore, we made an additional comment in the “Data availability statement” to help readers to find them quickly.

7. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

There are some requests for the methods sections that we added .

Reviewer #1:

We have to thank the reviewer sharing our enthusiasm for our data. The critical remarks were very helpful and have led to a substantial improvement of our manuscript. The following responses/changes were given to his comments:

Main comment: The manuscript entitled “Evaluation of risk-promoting effects for age-related macular degeneration by estradiol” describes how biological or ovariectomy-induced estradiol deficiency promotes mechanisms that lead to age-related macular degeneration. Further, the authors documented, the estradiol-dependent promotion of cellular senescence is more pronounced than that of cellular inflammation. Importantly, the authors documented, the estradiol deficiency probably acts as a modulator that increases susceptibility to retinal degeneration rather than initiating a direct pathological cascade leading to age-related macular degeneration. Overall, the manuscript is well written with few errors. I have one major concern, although the authors have shown nice images of hematoxylin and eosin staining, exhibiting photoreceptor degeneration and a reduction in the ganglion cell nuclei count in ovariectomized rats. I suggest performing immunohistochemical analysis employing rod and cone photoreceptor antibodies to further confirm the photoreceptor degeneration.

This is basically a good suggestion made by the reviewer. Photoreceptor degeneration is defined by the loss of photoreceptor cells. The most precise way to measure this is counting nuclei in the rows of the ONL that includes both that of cones and rods. The counting of photoreceptors by their opsins is less precise as the high density of opsins make it difficult to separate individual cells. The suggestion to additionally evaluate immunohistochemical staining of rods and cones is even more difficult because rats have a rod-dominated photoreceptor layer. Due to the high density, rhodopsin staining to identify the photoreceptor outer segments would, based on experience, result in a single fluorescent line. For these reasons, it is the international standard to quantify photoreceptor degeneration by counting nuclei in the ONL; two examples Qi, H., Cole, J., Grambergs, R.C. et al. Sphingosine Kinase 2 Phosphorylation of FTY720 is Unnecessary for Prevention of Light-Induced Retinal Damage. Sci Rep 9, 7771 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44047-z or Mirza, Myriam et al. “Progressive retinal degeneration and glial activation in the CLN6 (nclf) mouse model of neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis: a beneficial effect of DHA and curcumin supplementation.” PloS one vol. 8,10 e75963. 4 Oct. 2013, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075963.

A few minor comments are below.

1. Introduction section, line 96. Incorporate a reference related to hormone therapy during menopause.

Thank you for the hint. We have added the clinical studies we wanted to cite. (line 94; (19-21), line 95; ROS (22, 23)).

2. Materials and methods section, line 143. Write the confluency of the cell culture as a percentage.

We added the information that for the experiments with semiconfluent cells, we used cultures in which 80% of the cells were confluent (line 143).

3. Materials and methods section, line 148. It should be “The primer sequences are provided in Table 1.”

Thank you for the improvement suggestion. We have implemented it exactly. (line 148 - 149)

4. Materials and methods section, line 150. Italicize the gene name throughout the manuscript, including the table.

We have corrected the style of gene names throughout the manuscript (including tables and figures) to gene names in italics and protein names in normal script. In the in vitro experiment with human cells, we used italicized capital letters. In the ex vivo experiment with rat samples, just the first letter capital and the names are also italic.

5. Figure legends 2, 3, and 5. Write the magnification of the images captured.

We have added magnification information to the legends of Figures 2 to 6. In addition, we have indicated in the Methods section that all images of paraffin sections were taken at 200- or 400-times magnification (line 224), and images of flatmount samples at 200-times magnification (line 239).

Reviewer #2:

We thank the reviewer for his very positive evaluation of or manuscript. He made had many important suggestions that we answered in the following ways:

This is a well-written and carefully executed study that investigates the contribution of estradiol deficiency to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) risk, with a focus on retinal degeneration, inflammation, and cellular senescence. The authors employed two rat models: naturally aged Lewis rats (22 months) to mimic biological estradiol decline and rats ovariectomized at 8 months, analyzed at 22 months, to model early menopause. Six-month-old rats served as controls. Methods included serum hormone analysis (ELISA, LC-MS/MS), qPCR for gene expression, immunohistochemistry for protein localization, AI-based image analysis for retinal cell density and inflammatory markers, and in vitro assays using ARPE-19 cells to assess ER function. The study provides compelling evidence that estradiol deficiency does not directly cause AMD but promotes retinal degeneration, inflammation, and senescence, thereby increasing AMD risk. Importantly, the data also point toward broader hormonal influences, with DHEA-S potentially contributing to photoreceptor degeneration in early menopause. While the manuscript is strong, several limitations should be addressed to strengthen its conclusions:

Comment 1: The manuscript provides convincing structural evidence of retinal alterations; however, the absence of functional vision assessment (e.g., ERG) limits translational impact. Electrophysiological characterization would determine whether hormonal deficiencies result in measurable visual dysfunction, thereby enhancing clinical relevance to AMD progression.

This is a very good suggestion, as also as we are able to record ERG. However, among our investigated animals are those of an age of 22 months. ERG recordings require anesthesia. As not only the retina is strongly affected, we expected severe side effects of ERG recordings such as reduced organ perfusion that will interfere with ERG signals apart from those caused by photoreceptor degeneration. Given the strong morphological affection of these retinas, we expect ERG recordings far away from normal base lines. This is also the reason for that the strengths of the ERG are to detect retinal dysfunction already before structural changes occur. Here, we want also emphasize that in the clinical practice assessments of retinal degeneration are rarely done by ERG. For the assessment of progression, the clinical findings refer exclusively to structural changes (for assessing functional changes, visual acuity testing with optotypes is the first choice) Thus, we found the structural analysis must suffice our conclusions.

Comment 2: The link between estradiol deficiency and p16/p21-driven senescence in ERβ-expressing retinal populations is compelling but requires deeper mechanistic insight. Single-cell RNA sequencing of retinal cell types (RGCs, INL cells, and RPE) from estradiol-deficient models could delineate cell type–specific senescence programs.

Thank you for the suggestion. We would be happy to implement this. However, single-cell RNA sequencing of retinal cell types (RGCs, INL cells, and RPE) from estradiol-deficient models is unfortunately not feasible within the period for a paper review: rats of age more than 20 months and final data after submission of the probes to the Charite Technology Platforms in at least three months. However, as the reviewer asks for, we find this extremely interesting and plan this our follow-up studies.

Comment 3: The study associates global hormone status (progesterone, corticosterone, DHEA-S, alongside estradiol) with retinal degeneration, inflammation, and senescence. However, the individual contributions of progesterone or corticosterone to the observed phenotype remain undefined. Clarifying their specific roles in retinal degeneration, inflammation, or senescence markers would strengthen the conclusions.

Thanks for this question. To our knowledge, this is may be the first paper that shows that menopause-dependent changes in the hormone system are not exclusively estrogen-dependent effects. The focus of our study is the role of estradiol but we want to put observations in relation to other possible effectors in menopause. We think researchers in this area should be aware of this. With the observed compensatory changes in other hormones, we wanted to emphasize the complexity of hormonal imbalance. Particularly because other papers conclude that any effects in the ovariectomy model are exclusively due to estradiol loss. Like the reviewer, we see as the next step the clarification of the role of other hormones affected by menopause. However, describing the precise effects of this imbalance of other sex hormones requires further studies of substantial coverage.

Comment 4: The use of 6-month-old rats as controls for both 22-month-old (aged) and ovariectomized 22-month-old rats may not adequately account for age-related changes independent of estradiol deficiency. An age-matched control group would better isolate the effects of estradiol loss from normal aging.

This is a question of the focus in our study. The 6 months old animals are controls to identify age-related changes in 22 months old normal rats. The comparison of 22 months old ovariectomized rats with 22 months old sham-operated controls reveal the differences by the disturbed hormone activity at age. The comparison of 6 months old sham-operated animals with 6 months old ovariectomized rats will reveal only the effects of hormone disturbance at young ages; may be a mistake in studies that use only young rats. Thus, our study focused on the impact of estradiol on aging processes rather than on estradiol's action per se. A link to AMD can only be evaluated in the changes in advanced animal age, together with estradiol deficiency.

Comment 5: The authors propose that photoreceptor degeneration and cellular senescence in ovariectomized rats may occur through ERβ-independent mechanisms, potentially mediated by DHEA-S reduction. However, this interpretation lacks direct experimental support. Additional validation—such as DHEA-S supplementation studies or downstream pathway analyses—would provide mechanistic clarity and strengthen claims about non-estradiol hormonal influences on AMD risk.

Yes, you are right, additional validation—such as DHEA-S supplementation studies or downstream pathway analyses—would provide mechanistic clarity and strengthen claims about non-estradiol hormonal influences on AMD risk. However, in our current study, the focus was on the impact of estradiol deficiency on the risk of AMD. The associated loss of DHEA-S should be mentioned here only for completeness, especially since it has been ignored in previous studies using the ovariectomy model. Further studies are urgently needed to unravel this complexity. We may also emphasize that such an interventional study would not be able in a normal period of paper revision but would also be a study of its own.

Reviewer #3:

We would like to thank also reviewer #3 for his detailed evaluation of the manuscript that revealed many items with the need for the correction. Our responses and changes in the manuscript are the following ones:

In this manuscript, authors have utilized two different rat models to study estradiol deficiency-related changes that could potentially be associated with AMD. S

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0340477.s008.docx (48.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Mohd Akbar Bhat

22 Dec 2025

Evaluation of risk promoting effects for age-related macular degeneration by estradiol

PONE-D-25-16542R1

Dear Dr. StrauB

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohd Akbar Bhat, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed all my concerns including related to the immunohistochemical analysis.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: ZEESHAN AHMAD

**********

Acceptance letter

Mohd Akbar Bhat

PONE-D-25-16542R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Strauß,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohd Akbar Bhat

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw Images. Fig5. Original images of the gel electrophoresis.

    (PDF)

    pone.0340477.s001.pdf (1.8MB, pdf)
    S2 Raw Files. Phalloidin staining Fig4 Original images used for the RPE segmentation by AIVIA, shown in Figure 4.

    (PDF)

    pone.0340477.s002.pdf (908.6KB, pdf)
    S3 Raw Files. Iba1 staining Fig6 Original images used for the segmentation of Iba1 positive cells by AIVIA, shown in Figure 6.

    (PDF)

    pone.0340477.s003.pdf (513.1KB, pdf)
    S4 File. Fig3 negative control. Negative control of the staining of Fig3.

    (TIF)

    pone.0340477.s004.tif (5.9MB, tif)
    S5 File. Fig3 peripheral. Staining of Fig3 in the peripheral retina.

    (TIF)

    pone.0340477.s005.tif (7.7MB, tif)
    S6 Table. Antibody Registry beta ID Tab6 Tab7. Additional information on the antibodies used, including ID from “Antibody Registry beta”.

    (PDF)

    pone.0340477.s006.pdf (90.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0340477.s008.docx (48.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw data files are available from the zenodo database (accession number https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17464743).


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES