Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 6;18(2):e0281165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281165

Changes in the vitreous body after experimental vitreous hemorrhage in rabbit: An interdisciplinary study

Pengcheng Zhang 1,2, Weijia Yan 3, Hong Yan 1,*
Editor: Andrzej Grzybowski4
PMCID: PMC9901783  PMID: 36745670

Abstract

Purpose

To explore the changes in vitreous body after vitreous hemorrhage and assess its prognosis from the perspective of vitreoretinal interface.

Methods

The experiment was performed on 32 New Zealand rabbits (64 eyes), weighing 2500–3000 g for 4 months and unlimited gender, which was injected with 0.2 mL of autologous blood into the center of vitreous cavity–the study group (right eyes), and the control one was treated in the same manner with equal volumes of saline. The rabbits were randomly and equally divided into the following four batches according to the days of observation: Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 after injection. IOP and severity grading were evaluated before rabbits’ execution and eyeballs were enucleated. The anterior segment was separated to flow out the vitreous body naturally to detect the liquefaction degree and viscosity. Then, chemical composition of electrolytes, PCT and bFGF were determined by colorimetry and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Finally, the incidence of posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) was observed after vitreous sampled. The studies were double-blind.

Results

After injection, the extent of vitreous opacity and coagulum size decreased over time. Both the degree of liquefaction and the length of tow differed significantly between two groups at different time points (all p < 0.001). The liquefaction degree in the study group rose obviously from the Day 14, which the viscosity declined significantly on the initial time. Biochemical markers fluctuated temporarily, except for basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), which continued to rise and was correlated with the liquefaction degree (r = 0.658, p < 0.001). Besides, the incidence of PVD increased from the 14th day (p < 0.05), and it was highly positively correlated with the number of macrophages (r = 0.934; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

After vitreous hemorrhage, the changes of the vitreous body are relatively minor earlier (2–4 weeks), but irreversible later. Specifically, the degree of liquefaction increases with a decrease in viscosity, and the chemotaxis of macrophages and bFGF induce incomplete PVD.

Introduction

The outbreak of Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has put humans’ lives and health at risk throughout the world [1]. As an exposed organ, the protection of eye is crucial in decelerating the spread and prevalence of the virus. Vitreous body, as the main content, plays a vital role in supporting ocular tissues and maintaining intraocular homeostasis. And, the role of vitreous hemorrhage (VH) has become one of research Hot Topics in secondary eye diseases. In fact, it does not constitute a separate disease, but rather a transitional period of vitreoretinopathy that arises from the periphery, or the vessels penetrating into the vitreous body [2], and subsequently causes liquefaction, epiretinal membrane, and even tractional detachment of retina. Therefore, it is critical to eliminate the role that hemorrhage plays in vitreous changes.

Hemorrhage or drugs residues in vitreous gel make it difficult to clear or diffuse from the visual axis [3, 4]. Researchers have attempted to dissolve blood, induce vitreous structural changes, or directly remove it. So, predicting the properties of the vitreous can help design bionic vitreous substitutes [5], analyze the intravitreal transport of therapeutics, and understand the pathology. However, there is a relative lack of discussion in vitreous, especially in terms of biomechanics, which is the motivation of this study.

Then, what happens in the vitreous body itself after VH and how it affects its course? The purpose of the current study is to investigate series of changes in vitreous after experimental VH and assess its prognosis from the perspective of vitreoretinal interface. Rabbit was selected as research animal for the following reasons: rabbit studies in ophthalmology are relatively mature, the composition of vitreous body of rabbit is similar to that of human, and the rabbit are gentle, easier to obtain and raise compared with other animals [68]. The blood absorption, an extracellular hemolysis, leads to the biomechanical fluctuation and redistribution of biochemical parameters of vitreous humor [912]. Furthermore, an endotoxin-induced inflammation-related protein called procalcitonin (PCT) and basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) are possible culprits [13].

Material and methods

Rabbits

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Xi’an People’s Hospital (Xi’an Fourth Hospital) (No. 20220019), and performed in accordance with the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Statement for the Use of Animals in Ophthalmic and Vision Research.

The liquefaction degree and viscosity were used as main evaluation indexes, and the sample size was estimated base on t test data. Power package in the R programming language was utilized to analyze the sample size required in the current study, and a large effect size d = 0.80 was preset [14], with a statistical test power 1-β = 0.8, significance level α = 0.05. The estimated minimum sample size was 26 subjects (eyes) in each group, and the estimated shedding rate was 10 percent. Finally, 32 New Zealand ordinary white rabbits (64 eyes, Experimental Animal Center, Air Force Medical University), 2.5–3.0 kg for 4 months and unlimited gender, were included, while any one with obvious lesions in the anterior segment or fundus of eye was excluded. They were housed singly, with food and water intake freely, strict temperature (23±2°C), humidity (50±5%) control, indoor ventilation, and adapted for at least 1 week before injection. Levofloxacin eye drops were put in to prevent infection (1/time, 3/day for 3 days). At the same time, feeding environment, as well as the health of rabbits, was monitored 3 times a day.

Animal model construction

The rabbit was anesthetized with sodium pentobarbital (25–30 mg/kg) intramuscularly. The eyes were assigned into two groups: study group (right eyes)–full autologous blood injected, and control one (left eyes, evaluate possible adverse effects of ocular trauma or exogenous fluid)–injected with equal volumes of saline in the same manner [15, 16]. After collection from the marginal ear vein, 0.2 mL of autologous blood was injected into the right eye’ center of vitreous cavity immediately, via pars plana approach to the upper temporal quadrant, 5 mm away from the limbus, following a standardized procedure. Then, an anterior chamber puncture was performed to soft eyes. All procedures were performed by the same surgeon with a 19-gauge needle under the control of an ophthalmoscope.

Study design

The rabbits were randomly and evenly divided into the following four batches by Excel random number method according to the days of observation: Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (n = 8 each time point) [15] after injection. First, IOP and severity grading [17] were evaluated before analysis of the vitreous properties. Then, they were executed by causing gas embolism and the eyeballs were enucleated using standard technique. The anterior segment was separated to expose and flow out the vitreous body naturally to petri dishes with a filter to detect the liquefaction degree and viscosity. 0.5-mL of vitreous humor was extracted using a micropipette (Eppendorf, 100–1000 μL) to a 1.5-mL tapered EP tube to determine the chemical composition of electrolytes, PCT and bFGF by colorimetry and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [15]. Finally, the eyeball was cut in half after vitreous sampled and the incidence of PVD was observed with scanning electron microscope (SEM) and transmission electron microscope (TEM), respectively. The treatments and measurements were double-blind, unaware to both operators and recorders, only to the researchers. The cage location did not differ in terms of lighting, temperature and noise, and there was no accidental loss of rabbits.

Biomechanical, biochemical researches and ultrastructure observation on vitreous body

Vitreous humor was poured onto a pre-weighed fiber filter (12 cm ×15 cm, with mesh diameter of 1.5 mm), which was placed on a pre-weighed dish to separate the gel (Mgel) from the liquid (Mliq). The percentage of vitreous liquefaction was then calculated as follows: Mliq/(Mgel + Mliq). Next, the gel was lifted vertically at a constant speed of 0.5 mm/s with a 3 mm diameter glass applicator, which fixed to a speed control device and, the viscosity was graded on the basis of the length of its tow recorded when it happens to break: high, > 10mm; moderate, 5–10 mm; low, < 5 mm.

The remaining vitreous humor was extracted, centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 10 min, and the supernatant was quickly frozen at −20°C. Sample was uniformly thawed at room temperature, and standard and tested antibodies were added to the antibody-coated microporous layer in turn according to time, dosage, order, and then washed thoroughly after warm incubation. The absorbance (OD value) was measured at 450 nm in a microplate reader to calculate the mass concentrations of PCT and bFGF.

The eyeballs cured with 3% glutaraldehyde were cut frontal, while those frozen in acetone were incised sagittal vertically to preserve vitreous changes.

Statistical analysis

SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corporation, USA) was utilized for statistical analysis. P-P plot and Shapiro-Wilk test were used for normality test, and Levene in exploratory analysis was used for homogeneity of variance test. When the assumptions were not met, nonparametric test will be considered. For data analysis, the following statistical methods were used: average, standard deviation, ANOVA, t-test, proportions, chi-square test, Gamma test, pearson or spearman for correlation analysis, and confidence interval for p = 0.95.

Results

Course of VH

Compared with control group, the IOP in study one decreased on day 3 after injection, and then returned to baseline. However, the difference of IOP between two groups was not statistically significant (10.68±1.58 vs. 11.28±1.90 mmHg, t = -1.960, p = 0.059; paired samples t test). Paired difference was (-0.59±1.71) mmHg, and 95% confidence interval of the difference was (-1.21, 0.02) mmHg. The study group showed a progressive decreased in the grade of vitreous opacifications [17] from the initial grade-1 to grade-4 over time, which was segregated in five grades ophthalmoscopically, while the control one remained clear. As categoric variables among multiple groups with bidirectional order and different attributes, spearman analysis showed that there was a strong positive correlation between the opacities grade and postoperative follow-up time in the study group (ρ = 0.860, p < 0.001). Further, Gamma test was used to compare the numbers of eyeballs under different grades in each period of study group, and it showed significant difference (G = 0.943, p < 0.001), which means the extent of vitreous opacity decreased over time (Table 1). The average size of coagulum at different time intervals was 6.5, 5, 4, and 2 mm2, respectively. The correlation of the coagulum size and follow-up time was highly significant via pearson test (r = -0.976, p = 0.024).

Table 1. Eyeball number according to grading of vitreous opacities.

Grade Study group Control group
Day-3 Day-7 Day-14 Day-30 Day-3 Day-7 Day-14 Day-30
1 7 5
2 1 3 1
3 5 2 1
4 2 6 1 1
5 6 7 8 8

Grade 1 − completely opaque vitreous

Grade 2 − increased red reflex and no fundus detail visible

Grade 3 − patches of fundus visible between discrete vitreous opacities

Grade 4 − central vitreous clear with small residual opacities

Grade 5 –totally clean vitreous.

Degree of liquefaction and viscosity

The difference of liquefaction degree between the paired two groups was statistically significant (48.56±10.88 vs. 32.09±3.16%, t = 9.978, p = 0.000). Paired difference was (16.46±9.33) %, and 95% confidence interval of the difference was (13.10, 19.83) %. There was no significant difference Day 3 after operation between two groups (t = 1.826, p = 0.111), but the difference in the remaining periods were statistically significant (t = 9.066, 18.793, 29.439, all p < 0.001) (Fig 1 and Table 2). The data of liquefaction degree at different time points in the study group were in line with normal distribution but without equal variance, and the differences were not all the same, with a statistically significant (H = 24.319, p < 0.001; kruskal-wallis H test). The mean rank of days 3, 7, 14, and 30 after injection were 4.50, 15.00, 19.38, and 27.12, respectively. Post-hoc pairwise comparison showed that there were statistically significant differences between day-3 and day-14 (adjusted p = 0.009), and between day-3 and day-30 (adjusted p < 0.001), while there was no difference among the remaining points. It is noteworthy that the liquefaction degree in the controls also slightly increased (F = 12.842, p < 0.001; one-way ANOVA, normal with equaled variance), and it was higher on day-30 than the remaining periods (all p < 0.05; pairwise). The viscosity of the vitreous humor in study group was graded moderate on day 3, and then became low, while it kept high in control one all the time. The difference of tow lengths between paired binocular gel was statistically significant (3.64±1.90 vs. 12.09±1.07 mm, t = -26.802, p < 0.001), and the differences were obvious between two groups at each time point (all p < 0.001, Table 2).

Fig 1. Comparison of liquefaction degree of binocular vitreous during the course of VH (*p < 0.05).

Fig 1

Table 2. Comparison of biomechanical characteristics of binocular vitreous at different time intervals (n = 8, x¯ ±s).

Biomechanics Study group Control group t p value
Degree of Liquefaction (%) Day-3 31.57±3.36 29.52±2.56 1.826 0.111
Day-7 50.31±5.53 31.05±2.38 9.066 0.000
Day-14 54.40±2.77 31.88±2.03 18.793 0.000
Day-30 57.96±1.19 35.93±1.52 29.439 0.000
Tow length of gel (mm) Day-3 6.56±0.73 12.63±1.06 -13.324 0.000
Day-7 3.25±0.89 12.25±0.85 -20.785 0.000
Day-14 2.69±0.75 11.94±1.05 -20.248 0.000
Day-30 2.06±0.56 11.56±1.21 -20.158 0.000

Biochemical markers

Fig 2 shows that, unlike the control group (left eyes, L), concentration of iron, potassium, and TP in the study one (right eyes, R) obviously increased on day 3 (p < 0.05). All the indicators above peaked on day 7, and then returned to baseline. Moreover, concentration of bFGF in the study group gradually increased (204.30 to 426.00, 301.62±60.90 pg/mL), with the difference beginning to be statistically significant on day 14 (t = 4.816, p = 0.002). There was a moderate linear correlation between bFGF and degree of liquefaction (pearson r = 0.658, p < 0.001). No difference in concentrations of sodium and PCT between the two groups (all p > 0.05).

Fig 2. Line chart of changes in biochemical indicators after VH.

Fig 2

Ultrastructure of VRI

Fig 3 shows that the ultrastructural images of VRI observed under electron microscopes. The binocular response to interventions was analyzed by recording an average number of macrophages and the occurrence of PVD seen within 3 visual fields at the specified spots. SEM showed that PVD appeared as the ILM became smooth and exposed with the lysis of erythrocytes and the sparse and disordered arrangement of collagen fibers. Under the TEM, PVD was induced by cell chemotaxis in the VRI, especially the attachment of activated macrophages. Chi-square test showed that PVD in study group obviously increased from the 14th day (χ2 = 7.385, p = 0.007), and most of them were incomplete PVD, which appeared near the retina (Table 3). In addition, the incidence of PVD was highly positively correlated with the number of macrophages (pearson r = 0.898, p < 0.001).

Fig 3. Ultrastructure of vitreoretinal interface.

Fig 3

(Study eye: A. SEM ╳3000, B. TEM ╳4000; Control eye). Rc: red blood cells were interwoven with collagen fibers. Cf: the collagen fibers were distributed sparsely. PVD: VRI was damaged irregularly, vitreous cortex peeled from the ILM of retina. M: macrophages attached to the VRI and induced PVD.

Table 3. PVD and average number of macrophages according to intervals of time (n = 8).

Time intervals Study group Control group
Near the ciliary body Near the retina Near the ciliary body Near the retina
PVD Macrophages PVD Macrophages PVD Macrophages PVD Macrophages
Day 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Day 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Day 14 1 3 5 8 0 1 0 3
Day 30 1 1 6 9 0 0 0 1

Discussion

This study, which using 2 sets of rabbits, focused on vitreous body, attempted to explore the series of changes after VH and the effects on complications, so as to provide ideas for investigating the pathogenesis of VH progression. The disclosure of changes in these properties also has certain clinical application values, such as design of ideal vitreous substitute, analysis of intravitreal drug transport, update for prevention strategies, etc. In this study, no obvious behavioral abnormalities were noted, and IOP did not fluctuate significantly. Retina can self-regulate blood supply and discharge under a certain IOP range, but animal studies had shown that retinal detachment is directly related to the degree of vasospasm in the ophthalmic artery during decompensated [18]. Blood injection resulted in rapid coagulum formation, followed by clearance due to fibrinolysis and PVD. It found that the extent of vitreous opacity and coagulum size decreased over time within one month, which exhibited no behavioral and retinal abnormalities. Thus, it is reasonable to wait for spontaneous clearance of VH within 4 weeks.

It is due to its intrinsic biomechanical characteristics, such as liquefaction, viscoelasticity, heterogeneity, and dynamic deformation [19, 20], that allows vitreous body to absorb impacts and protect the retina and lens by acting as a mechanical damper. Changes of such properties can be the origin of later complications. During the test, the liquefaction was aggravated due to the formation of liquefaction pools caused by the separation of water and collagen. As one of the components, collagen contributes to the stiffness of the gel, and the viscosity of vitreous gel decreases with the increase of stiffness after collagen concentration. Fig 1 shows that liquefaction in the study eye started 14 days after blood injection, and accelerated in the control one 30 days postoperatively. With the increasing degree of liquefaction, the viscosity decreases (Table 2), allowing the erythrocytes to diffuse around and facilitate absorption. However, when the integrity of vitreous is broken, a simultaneous increase in liquid volume and stiffening of localized gel could disrupt the balance of stress distribution in eye, placing more stress on the retina potentially [10]. So should slight liquefaction be induced to favor the absorption? The shape of the detached vitreous has been linked to the intensity of vitreoretinal tractions [21]. This study suggests that VH should be treated with medication for approximately 4 weeks and it can be continued if the coagulum sunk to give a clear vision. Otherwise, vitrectomy should be considered to prevent serious complications. Hayashida et al. [22] held that vitrectomy within two weeks may prevent poor visual outcomes, especially in dense VH with unclear etiology. Additionally, liquefaction in the control group was considered to be caused by defensive stress after exposure to intraocular tissue antigens, similar to sympathetic ophthalmia. Therefore, appropriate and prompt therapy for VH is essential.

As can be seen from Fig 2, the biochemical indicators fluctuated temporarily, except for bFGF. It was found that the concentrations of iron, potassium, and TP in the study group obviously increased on day 3 and peaked on day 7, without fluctuations in the concentrations of sodium and PCT. Sodium-potassium ATPase, which can trigger receptor potential, balance osmotic pressure, and regulate solute concentration, is widely distributed in the layers of the retina [23]. Because of dual functions of enzyme and carrier, its activity can be used as an indicator to evaluate retinal cells. Our previous studies confirmed that, the activities of catalase and sodium-potassium ATPase can be drastically reduced by removal of the intact gel, which induces oxidation and aggregation of the lens [11]. The relationship of vitreous composition and biomechanics has been investigated [24]. We propose that a brief increase and redistribution of electrolytes could further disrupt the intact gel, while rapid recovery indicates that attenuation of function of blood-retinal barrier is reversible.

Beside the protection of myelin, there are also various intraocular protective factors, such as bFGF, which has important biological activities in promoting development, proliferation, and differentiation [13]. Our test showed that, the level of vitreous bFGF was moderately correlated with the degree of liquefaction, indicating that bFGF may be involved in the progression of liquefaction and PVD after VH, and even affect the severity of PVR. Li JK, et al. [25] found that the higher level of vitreous bFGF, but not VEGF, correlated with the degree of vitreoretinal fibrosis. However, studies in primates have demonstrated that, RC28-E, as a VEGF/bFGF dual decoy receptor, can be rapidly and evenly distributed into ocular tissues after intravitreal administration, and cross the blood-ocular barrier, which has exhibited high clinical value [26]. Hsuan et al. [27] have reported that bFGF has neurotrophic and protective effects, which could maintain survival, delay the degeneration of neurons, and promote the growth and regeneration of nerve cells. After a pooled analysis, we reasonably speculated that expression of bFGF will be upregulated after VH to induce several kinds of cells to the wound in response to the chemoattractant. If out of control, bFGF can be a double-edged sword, initiating PVR. PVR is an excessive repair response of the retina to trauma, which determines the therapeutic effects [28, 29]. Therefore, determining how these growth factors work is a key to novel therapeutic strategies. Targeting bFGF can effectively neutralize the bioactivity of PVR, and the mass concentration of bFGF in gel is directly proportional to the severity of PVR [30, 31].

After intravitreal injection, erythrocytes lysis, hemoglobin releases iron ions, macrophages release superoxide radicals, and inflammation activates enzymatic reactions, which together lead to vitreous changes. It is the fluid flow from ciliary body to optic disc that initiate the macrophages to clear erythrocytes through loose space around the disc. The results showed an increase in PVD from the 14th day, with more incomplete PVD appearing near the retina induced by activated macrophages. PVD may be related to collagenase or elastase released by macrophages [32]. Notably, given the correlation between bFGF and liquefaction, as well as between macrophages numbers and PVD, it can be speculated that bFGF and macrophages play a vital role in the progression of VH. Based on the ultrastructure of VRI derived from human donors and animals, it is proposed that the main reason for fibroblast deficiency is barriers-related [33]. Our associated investigators compared the efficacy of combined and sequential surgery for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. They found that the combined surgery had more fibrinous exudation, although both were effective [34]. It suggests that the changes in vitreous body are reversible within 2–4 weeks, which may provide clues for the timing of sequential surgery.

Conclusions

In summary, an interdisciplinary study for vitreous body was initially attempted, focusing on the effects of hemorrhage on its biomechanics, biochemistry and ultrastructure. After VH, changes of the vitreous are relatively minor earlier (2–4 weeks), but irreversible later. The degree of liquefaction increases with a decrease in viscosity, and chemotaxis of macrophages and bFGF induce incomplete PVD. But, there were also limitations, including the absence of a blank control group, the failure to subdivide the injection volume in the model construction, and imprecision associated with the results due to the infancy interdisciplinary research on vitreous. Hence, further cooperation, focusing more on biomechanics and electrolytes, is urgently needed to achieve the goal of in vivo measurement and analysis for vitreous properties.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Author checklist.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We greatly thanks help of the rabbit house and techniques from Department of Ophthalmology, Tangdu Hospital, Xi’an, China.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information file.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by National Nature Science Foundation of China (81873674, 82070947, to Hong Yan), Xi’an Fourth Hospital Research Incubation Fund (LH-6) and Xi’an Talent Program (XAYC200021). The financial sources had no role in study desigh, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of manuscript.

References

  • 1.Joseph E. P, Elaina P “An exploratory Integrated Moving Average Time Series Model of the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in six (6) significantly impacted Countries”. Plos One, 2020: Forthcoming. 10.1101/2020.07.09.20150136 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zeng Y, Cao D, Yu H, Zhuang X, Yang D, Hu Y, et al. Comprehensive analysis of vitreous chemokines involved in ischemic retinal vein occlusion. Mol Vis, 2019; 25: 756–765. Epub 2019/12/10. http://dx.doi.org/www.molvis.org/molvis/v25/756 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Khoshnevis M, Sebag J. Pharmacologic vitreolysis with ocriplasmin: rationale for use and therapeutic potential in vitreo-retinal disorders. BioDrugs, 2015; 29(2): 103–112. Epub 2015/03/31. doi: 10.1007/s40259-015-0120-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Maleki A, Tohidi-Zand SR, Amirizadeh N, Dehghan-Haghighi J, Zanjani H, Arish M, et al. Intravitreal autologous plasmin prepared by urokinase for vitreolysis: a pilot study. Eur J Ophthalmol, 2016; 26(1): 67–70. Epub 2015/06/06. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000628 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Liu Z, Liow SS, Lai SL, Alli-Shaik A. Retinal-detachment repair and vitreous-like-body reformation via a thermogelling polymer endotamponade. Nat Biomed Eng, 2019; 3(8): 598–610. Epub 2019/4/8. doi: 10.1038/s41551-019-0382-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Durairaj C, Chastain JE, Kompella UB. Intraocular distribution of melanin in human, monkey, rabbit, minipig and dog eyes. Exp Eye Res, 2012; 98(1): 23–27. Epub 2012/03/24. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2012.03.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Los LI. The rabbit as an animal model for post-natal vitreous matrix differentiation and degeneration. Eye (Lond), 2008; 22(10): 1223–1232. Epub 2008/03/11. doi: 10.1038/eye.2008.39 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Uesugi K, Sakaguchi H, Hayashida Y, Hayashi R, Baba K, Suganuma Y, et al. A Self-Assembling Peptide Gel as a Vitreous Substitute: A Rabbit Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2017; 58(10): 4068–4075. Epub 2017/08/19. doi: 10.1167/iovs.17-21536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bishop PN. Vitreous as a substrate for vitreolysis. Dev Ophthalmol, 2009; 44: 7–19. Epub 2009/06/06. doi: 10.1159/000223939 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tram NK, Swindle-Reilly KE. Rheological Properties and Age-Related Changes of the Human Vitreous Humor. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2018; 6: 199. Epub 2019/01/09. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yan H, Wang D, Ding TB, Zhou HY, Yan WJ, Wang XC. Comparison of lens oxidative damage induced by vitrectomy and/or hyperoxia in rabbits. Int J Ophthalmol, 2017; 10(1): 6–14. Epub 2017/02/06. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2017.01.02 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Breazzano MP, Fang H, Robinson MR, Abraham JL, Barker-Griffith AE. Vitreomacular Attachment Ultrastructure and Histopathological Correlation. Curr Eye Res, 2016; 41(8): 1098–1104. Epub 2015/11/19. doi: 10.3109/02713683.2015.1085578 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hirose F, Kiryu J, Tabata Y, Tamura H, Musashi K, Takase N, et al. Experimental proliferative vitreoretinopathy in rabbits by delivery of bioactive proteins with gelatin microspheres. Eur J Pharm Biopharm, 2018; 129: 267–272. Epub 2018/06/16. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2018.06.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull, 1992; 112(1): 155–159. Epub 1992/07/01. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vuković D. Natural evolution of experimental vitreous hemorrhage and effects of corticosteroids on its course. Srp Arh Celok Lek, 2013; 141(11–12): 732–737. Epub 2013/12/1. doi: 10.2298/sarh1312732v . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gad Elkareem AM, de Smet MD. Effect of microplasmin on the clearance of vitreous haemorrhage from an experimental model in rabbits. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014. Feb;92(1):47–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02568.x Epub 2012 Oct 1. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Forrester JV, Edgar W, Millar W, Prentice CR, Williamson J. Enhancement of vitreous clot lysis by urokinase: mode of action. Exp Eye Res, 1982; 34(6): 895–907. Epub 1982/06/01. doi: 10.1016/0014-4835(82)90069-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Findik H, Kanat A, Aydin MD, Cakir M, Ozmen SA, Okutucu M, et al. Describing a New Mechanism of Retinal Detachment Secondary to Ophthalmic Artery Vasospasm following Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: An Experimental Study. J Neurol Surgery, Part A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2019. Aug;80(6):430–40. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1685186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Huang D, Chen YS, Xu Q, Hanes J, Rupenthal ID. Effects of enzymatic degradation on dynamic mechanical properties of the vitreous and intravitreal nanoparticle mobility. Eur J Pharm Sci, 2018; 118: 124–133. Epub 2018/03/27. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2018.03.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Shah NS, Beebe DC, Lake SP, Filas BA. On the Spatiotemporal Material Anisotropy of the Vitreous Body in Tension and Compression. Ann Biomed Eng, 2016; 44(10): 3084–3095. Epub 2016/03/18. doi: 10.1007/s10439-016-1589-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Di Michele F, Tatone A, Romano MR, Repetto R. A mechanical model of posterior vitreous detachment and generation of vitreoretinal tractions. Biomech Model Mechanobiol, 2020; 19(6): 2627–2641. Epub 2020/7/8. doi: 10.1007/s10237-020-01360-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hayashida M, Miki A, Imai H, Otsuka K, Azumi A, Nakamura M. Impact of early vitrectomy for dense vitreous hemorrhage of unknown etiology. Ophthalmologica, 2019; 242(4): 234–238. Epub 2019/09/04. doi: 10.1159/000501723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Arakaki X, McCleary P, Techy M, Chiang J, Kuo L, Fonteh AN, et al. Na,K-ATPase alpha isoforms at the blood-cerebrospinal fluid-trigeminal nerve and blood-retina interfaces in the rat. Fluids Barriers CNS, 2013; 10(1): 14. Epub 2013/03/19. doi: 10.1186/2045-8118-10-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Filas BA, Zhang Q, Okamoto RJ, Shui YB, Beebe DC. Enzymatic degradation identifies components responsible for the structural properties of the vitreous body. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2014; 55(1): 55–63. Epub 2013/11/14. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-13026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Li JK, Wei F, Jin XH, Dai YM, Cui HS, Li YM. Changes in vitreous VEGF, bFGF and fibrosis in proliferative diabetic retinopathy after intravitreal bevacizumab. Int J Ophthalmol, 2015; 8(6): 1202–1206. Epub 2015/12/19. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.06.22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Jiang J, Wang L, Kou X, Liu Z, Huang M, Li H, et al. In vivo characterization of RC28-E, a fusion protein targeting VEGF and bFGF: Pharmacokinetics and ocular distribution in primates. Exp Eye Res, 2020; 190: 107823. Epub 2019/10/11. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2019.107823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hsuan SL, Klintworth HM, Xia Z. Basic fibroblast growth factor protects against rotenone-induced dopaminergic cell death through activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1/2 and phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase pathways. J Neurosci, 2006; 26(17): 4481–4491. Epub 2006/04/28. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4922-05.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shu DY, Lovicu FJ. Myofibroblast transdifferentiation: The dark force in ocular wound healing and fibrosis. Prog Retin Eye Res, 2017; 60: 44–65. Epub 2017/08/16. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kim B, Abdel-Rahman MH, Wang T, Pouly S, Mahmoud AM, Cebulla CM. Retinal MMP-12, MMP-13, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 expression in murine experimental retinal detachment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2014; 55(4): 2031–2040. Epub 2014/02/15. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-13374 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wong CG, Taban M, Osann K, Ross-Cisneros FN, Bruice TC, Zahn G, et al. Subchoroidal Release of VEGF and bFGF Produces Choroidal Neovascularization in Rabbit. Curr Eye Res, 2017; 42(2): 237–243. Epub 2016/10/18. doi: 10.1080/02713683.2016.1227448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Qu J, Wang L, Niu L, Lin J, Huang Q, Jiang X, et al. Porous Silk Fibroin Microspheres Sustainably Releasing Bioactive Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor. Materials (Basel), 2018; 11(8): 1280. Epub 2018/7/25. doi: 10.3390/ma11081280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Stepp MA, Menko AS. Immune responses to injury and their links to eye disease. Transl Res, 2021; 236: 52–71. Epub 2021/05/30. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2021.05.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Khadka D, Bhandari S, Bajimaya S, Thapa R, Paudyal G, Pradhan E. Nd:YAG laser hyaloidotomy in the management of Premacular Subhyaloid Hemorrhage. BMC Ophthalmol, 2016; 16: 41. Epub 2016/04/20. doi: 10.1186/s12886-016-0218-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yang Y, Zhang J, Yan H. Comparison of combined and sequential surgery for proliferative diabetic retinopathy: a single surgeon study. PLoS One, 2014; 9(9): e108933. Epub 2014/10/01. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108933 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andrzej Grzybowski

19 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-22747Changes in the Vitreous Body after Experimental Vitreous Hemorrhage in Rabbit: An Interdisciplinary StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 03 2022 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • 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,

Prof. Andrzej Grzybowski, MD, PhD, MBA, MAE

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. As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the Full ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines checklist, a document that aims to improve experimental reporting and reproducibility of animal studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: https://arriveguidelines.org/sites/arrive/files/documents/Author%20Checklist%20-%20Full.pdf (PDF). Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This research was supported by the Tangdu Hospital Grant for Clinical Innovation."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This research was supported by National Nature Science Foundation of

China (81873674, 82070947, to Hong Yan), Xi’an Fourth Hospital Research Incubation

Fund (LH-6) and Xi’an Talent Program (XAYC200021). The financial sources had no

role in study desigh, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors nvestigated the changes in vitreous body after vitreous hemorrhage and assess its prognosis 18 from the perspective of vitreoretinal interface

Currently, medicine has gone through moments of great renewal(1), and advanced methods s have been used(2). Many complications have been observed in the medical practice, such as the vitreous, may also lead to retinal detachment(3).

An optic nerve is an outward form of the diencephalon during embryogenesis, wrapped by a nerve sheath that is derived from three layers of meninges and protrudes toward the orbit(4). As a consequence of this communication, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) can transfer freely between the intracranial and intraorbital subarachnoid space(5). ICP is transmitted within the optic nerve sheath to obstruct the venous drainage from the eye. Intra-ocular pressure (IOP) was likely elevated after injection blood or serum. Experimentally, a low volumes of intravitreal blood may also cause toxicity in rabbit retina. IOP is regulated primarily through changes in aqueous humor formation and outflow. .

Similarity analyze reveals that the manuscript is similar to other article(without references) ata rate 35%. It should be less than 30%.

There are to aricle which are similar at a rate 8%. One of them is unpublished PDF.

Other is an article (doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.09.20150136) but this article was not aslo cited.

The aim of authors is notclear in the introduction section, but they wrote in first sentence of abstract. It should be emphasize in the introduction section.

In order to understand the changes after vitrous hemorrhage, the authors performed experiments in a rabbit model by injection of blood or saline, as well as control animals that did not undergo, so a SHAM group was used, but the finding of this group was not given in the result section

References

1. Gasenzer ERER, Kanat A, Ozdemir V, Neugebauer E. Analyzing of dark past and bright present of neurosurgical history with a picture of musicians. British Journal of Neurosurgery. 2018 May;1–2.

2. Kanat AA, Tsianaka EE, Gasenzer ERE, Drosos EE. Some Interesting Points of Competition of X-Ray using during the Greco-Ottoman War in 1897 and Development of Neurosurgical Radiology: A Reminiscence. Turk Neurosurg. 2021;accepted.

3. Findik H, Kanat A, Aydin MD, Cakir M, Ozmen SA, Okutucu M, et al. Describing a New Mechanism of Retinal Detachment Secondary to Ophthalmic Artery Vasospasm following Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: An Experimental Study. J Neurol Surgery, Part A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2019 Aug;80(6):430–40.

4. Kazdal H, Kanat A, Findik H, Sen A, Ozdemir B, Batcik OE, et al. Transorbital Ultrasonographic Measurement of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter for Intracranial Midline Shift in Patients with Head Trauma. World Neurosurg. 2016 Jan;85(1):292–7.

5. Kanat A, Kazdal H, Findik H. In Reply to Letter to the Editor Regarding “Transorbital Ultrasonographic Measurement of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter for Intracranial Midline Shift in Patients with Head Trauma”. World Neurosurg. 2019 Oct;130:586.

Reviewer #2: This study investigated the changes in vitreous body after vitreous hemorrhage and evaluated its prognosis from the perspective of vitreous interface. The vitreous hemorrhage model in this study is novel, and interdisciplinary research is very meaningful. This experiment designed to explore the changes in the vitreous body after vitreous hemorrhage (VH) in rabbits. They tested IOP, absorption, vitreous retina interface (VRI) and vitreous properties. The results could verify the purposes. Further research should focus more on the biomechanical parameters and electrolytes that significantly changed in the vitreous hemorrhage model.

There are number of minor errors and require the revision:

1. The motivation of study require to add to Introduction and the implication for clinical application also need to provide in Discussion.

2. Line 36 of the article: “and then subsequently…”, the then should be dropped.

Line 85, “fixed” should be replaced with “cured”

3. The English writing needs to improve by professional editor.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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: Yes: Ayhan Kanat

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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. 2023 Feb 6;18(2):e0281165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281165.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Oct 2022

Response letter

Dear Reviewers,

On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. Meanwhile, we appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Changes in the Vitreous Body after Experimental Vitreous Hemorrhage in Rabbit: An Interdisciplinary Study” (ID: PONE-D-22-22747).

We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully and tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript according to the comments. The following are responses and revisions I have made on an item-by-item basis.

Responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1: Dear reviewer Ayhan Kanat,

1) Similarity analyze reveals that the manuscript is similar to other article(without references) ata rate 35%. It should be less than 30%. There are to aricle which are similar at a rate 8%. One of them is unpublished PDF. Other is an article (doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.09.20150136) but this article was not aslo cited.

Response: We appreciate it very much for this excellent suggestion, and we have done it according to your comments. As for the large similarity, we have made substantial modifications in sections and sentences, and quoted the literature you mentioned above (doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.09.20150136) as the first reference in this manuscript. We do hope that the original degree and readability have been substantially improved.

2) The aim of authors is not clear in the introduction section, but they wrote in first sentence of abstract. It should be emphasize in the introduction section.

Response: We have supplied the aim of this study to the manuscript in the introduction section, line 68-70.

3) In order to understand the changes after vitrous hemorrhage, the authors performed experiments in a rabbit model by injection of blood or saline, as well as control animals that did not undergo, so a SHAM group was used, but the finding of this group was not given in the result section.

Response: In our study, the eyes of rabbits were assigned into two groups: study group (right eyes) – full autologous blood injected, and control one (left eyes, evaluate possible adverse effects of ocular trauma or exogenous fluid) – injected with equal volumes of saline in the same manner (Methods/Animal model construction/Line 98-101). No blank control animals that did not undergo (as a SHAM group) were included and not required to justify our statements. However, the ultrastructure images of the control group (saline injected) were further supplemented. And we will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from you.

Special thanks to you for your thoughtful comments.

Reviewer #2

1. The motivation of study require to add to Introduction and the implication for clinical application also need to provide in Discussion.

Response: We have supplied the study motivation and clinical application values in the introduction and conclusion sections respectively.

2. Line 36 of the article: “and then subsequently…”, the then should be dropped.

Line 85, “fixed” should be replaced with “cured”

Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of the presentation and the above errors you mentioned have been rectified (Line 59 and 138). Thanks for your advice.

3. The English writing needs to improve by professional editor.

Response: We apologize for some imprecise language of this paper. We worked on it for a long time, while the repeated addition and removal of sentences led to labored readability. We have now worked on both language and readability and have also involved native English speakers for corrections. We do hope that the language level and flow have been substantially improved.

Thanks again to the hard work of you!

We look forward to receiving your reply.

Kind regards,

Pengcheng Zhang

zhangipengcheng@outlook.com

Corresponding author: Hong Yan

E-mail: yan2128ts@med.nwu.edu.cn

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2 Response to Reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 1

Andrzej Grzybowski

2 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-22747R1Changes in the vitreous body after experimental vitreous hemorrhage in rabbit: an interdisciplinary studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 16 2023 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • 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,

Andrzej Grzybowski

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This interdisciplinary study focused on the effects of hemorrhage on biomechanics, biochemistry and ultrastructure of vitreous body. Vitreous hemorrhage is an important issue, because it may lead to persistent loss of vision(1). In this study, the eyes of rabbits were assigned into two groups: study group (right eyes) – full autologous blood injected, and control one (left eyes, evaluate possible adverse effects of ocular trauma or exogenous fluid) – injected with equal volumes of saline in the same manner. No blank control animals that did not undergo.

The author agrre that a control group is not required to justify their statements.

Is there any previous study that use this method?

If here is, I recommend them to cite that study.

If not, this situation should be noted in the limitation section.

The ultrastructure images of the control group (saline injected) were supplemented. It is difficult to accept the saline injected animal as a control group animal.

As part of the central nervous system, the optic nerve is surrounded by a distensible subarachnoidal space, designated as the optic nerve sheath(2). As a consequence of this communication, CSF can transfer freely between the intracranial and intraorbital subarachnoid space(3). This communication may be the reason why papilledema be a common neuro-opthalmological exam finding of intraocular pressure elevation. In this study, after intravitreal injection of blood or saline , IOP did not fluctuate significantly. How can the authors explain this situation?

Findik et al found that retinal detachment is directly related to the degree of vasospasm in the ophthalmic artery(1). I have a concern about the author’ suggestion about that the retina can dynamically maintain the blood flow rate constant. What do you think the authors about the vasospasm in the ophthalmic artery? The manuscript require minor revision

References

1. Findik H, Kanat A, Aydin MD, Cakir M, Ozmen SA, Okutucu M, et al. Describing a New Mechanism of Retinal Detachment Secondary to Ophthalmic Artery Vasospasm following Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: An Experimental Study. J Neurol Surgery, Part A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2019 Aug;80(6):430–40.

2. Guvercin AR, Besir A, Kanat A, Yazar U, Findik H. Interesting Negative Correlation between Transorbital Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter and Evans’ index Values; Can it Be Predictive for Failure of Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy? Int J Neurosci. 2022 Sep;1–11.

3. Kazdal H, Kanat A, Findik H, Sen A, Ozdemir B, Batcik OEOE, et al. Transorbital Ultrasonographic Measurement of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter for Intracranial Midline Shift in Patients with Head Trauma. World Neurosurg. 2016 Jan;85(1):292–7.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed. This manuscript is technically sound, and the data support the conclusions.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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: Yes: Ayhan Kanat

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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. 2023 Feb 6;18(2):e0281165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281165.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Jan 2023

Response letter

Dear Reviewers,

On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Changes in the Vitreous Body after Experimental Vitreous Hemorrhage in Rabbit: An Interdisciplinary Study” [PONE-D-22-22747R2] - [EMID:869453ce1fd5a818].

We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript according to the comments. The following are responses and revisions we have made on an item-by-item basis.

Responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1: Dear professor Ayhan Kanat,

1) The author agrre that a control group is not required to justify their statements. Is there any previous study that use this method? If here is, I recommend them to cite that study. If not, this situation should be noted in the limitation section. The ultrastructure images of the control group (saline injected) were supplemented. It is difficult to accept the saline injected animal as a control group animal.

Response: The intervention used in this study was an intravitreal injection of autologous blood, to explore the changes of vitreous itself after hemorrhage. That is, the focus is on intravitreous hemorrhage, rather than intravitreous injection. Therefore, a blank control in this study was not selected, but saline intravitreal injection. Similar method was also used for comparison, which has been cited in the manuscript (Line 101, new citations 15 and 16). Of course, it would be better to include blank control as well. Hence, it is pointed out in the limitation section (Line 305-306) that needs to be improved. We appreciate it very much for this excellent suggestion, and we will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from you.

2) As part of the central nervous system, the optic nerve is surrounded by a distensible subarachnoidal space, designated as the optic nerve sheath. As a consequence of this communication, CSF can transfer freely between the intracranial and intraorbital subarachnoid space. This communication may be the reason why papilledema be a common neuro-opthalmological exam finding of intraocular pressure elevation. In this study, after intravitreal injection of blood or saline , IOP did not fluctuate significantly. How can the authors explain this situation?

Response: It is true that the optic nerve is sensitive to changes in intraocular pressure. Vitreous fluid injection also likely causes IOP elevation. Thus, in the “Animal model construction” section of this manuscript, we mentioned that after the injection, the “anterior chamber puncture” procedure (Line 104-105) is designed to soften the eyeball, precisely to avoid excessive fluctuations of intraocular pressure.

3) I have a concern about the author’ suggestion about that the retina can dynamically maintain the blood flow rate constant. What do you think the authors about the vasospasm in the ophthalmic artery? The manuscript require minor revision.

Response: Special thanks to you for this valuable feedback. The dynamic regulation of retina for blood flow rate exists under a certain IOP range in physiological conditions. Once decompensation occurs, vasospasm or lesions may occur, that retinal detachment is directly related to the degree of vasospasm in the ophthalmic artery. We have revised the relevant content (Line 225-227, newly cited reference 19).

Reviewer #2: Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for appreciating our efforts to address your constructive comments, which really helped us improve the manuscript.

Thank both reviewers for your time and positive feedback for the evaluation of the revision.

We look forward to receiving your reply.

Kind regards,

Pengcheng Zhang

zhangipengcheng@outlook.com

Corresponding author: Hong Yan

E-mail: yan2128ts@med.nwu.edu.cn

Attachment

Submitted filename: 1 Response to Reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 2

Andrzej Grzybowski

17 Jan 2023

Changes in the vitreous body after experimental vitreous hemorrhage in rabbit: an interdisciplinary study

PONE-D-22-22747R2

Dear Dr. Yan,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Andrzej Grzybowski

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Andrzej Grzybowski

24 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-22747R2

Changes in the vitreous body after experimental vitreous hemorrhage in rabbit: an interdisciplinary study

Dear Dr. Yan:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Andrzej Grzybowski

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 Checklist. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Author checklist.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2 Response to Reviewers.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 1 Response to Reviewers.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information file.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES