Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2020 Aug 14;61(10):28. doi: 10.1167/iovs.61.10.28

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright 2020 The Authors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 4. — RGC loss in response to microbead injection. Heat maps of RGC density (A) show that compared to retinas from un-injected eyes (left column), microbead injection resulted in decreased RGC density in wt (top row) and Fbn1^Tsk/+ mice (bottom row) with variability between individual mice ranging from mild to severe damage, as well as lower densities in the superior and nasal quadrants. Analysis (B) comparing uninjected (left symbols) with bead-injected eyes (right symbols) showed significant loss of RGCs for wt (blue symbols) and Fbn1^Tsk/+ mice (red symbols) but not for sham-injected controls (green and orange symbols). The average percent RGC loss relative to the average number of RGCs in uninjected eyes (C) was lower for wt (blue bar) as compared with Fbn1^Tsk/+ mice (red bar). Orientation of retinal whole mounts (S: Superior, N: Nasal, I: Inferior and T: Temporal) and heat map density scale are shown (A). Numbers of microbead-injected animals: 43 wt and 26 Fbn1^Tsk^/+: sham-injected: 12 wt and 10 Fbn1^Tsk/+. Dashed lines connect paired eyes (B).