Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31809331›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurology2020

Neuro-protection and neuro-regeneration of the optic nerve: recent advances and future directions.

Kimberly K Gokoffski, Micalla Peng, Basheer Alas, Phillip Lam

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. The Future of Biohybrid Regenerative Bioelectronics.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Optic nerve regeneration: Potential treatment approaches.Current opinion in pharmacology · 2024
    Review
  19. Mesenchymal stem cells for repairing glaucomatous optic nerve.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kimberly K GokoffskiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Roski Eye Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Micalla Peng
Basheer Alas
Phillip Lam
Southern California Eye Institute · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

Southern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001855 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Thomas A Buchanan, Michele D. Kipke · 2016 to 2026
$81.3M
Ophthalmic Therapeutics Engineering CoreP30EY029220 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Mahnaz Shahidi · 2018 to 2026
$6.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001855NEI NIH HHS P30 EY029220
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewOptic neuropathies refer to a collection of diseases in which retinal ganglion cells (RGCs), the specialized neuron of the retina whose axons make up the optic nerve, are selectively damaged. Blindness secondary to optic neuropathies is irreversible as RGCs do not have the capacity for self-renewal and have a limited capacity for self-repair. Numerous strategies are being developed to either prevent further RGC degeneration or replace the cells that have degenerated. In this review, we aim to discuss known limitations to regeneration in central nervous system (CNS), followed by a discussion of previous, current, and future strategies for optic nerve neuroprotection as well as approaches for neuro-regeneration, with an emphasis on developments in the past two years. RECENT

findingsNeuro-regeneration in the CNS is limited by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Environmental barriers to axon regeneration can be divided into two major categories: failure to clear myelin and formation of glial scar. Although inflammatory scars block axon growth past the site of injury, inflammation also provides important signals that activate reparative and regenerative pathways in RGCs. Neuroprotection with neurotrophins as monotherapy is not effective at preventing RGC degeneration likely secondary to rapid clearance of growth factors. Novel approaches involve exploiting different technologies to provide sustained delivery of neurotrophins. Other approaches include application of anti-apoptosis molecules and anti-axon retraction molecules. Although stem cells are becoming a viable option for generating RGCs for cell-replacement-based strategies, there are still many critical barriers to overcome before they can be used in clinical practice. Adjuvant treatments, such as application of electrical fields, scaffolds, and magnetic field stimulation, may be useful in helping transplanted RGCs extend axons in the proper orientation and assist with new synapse formation. SUMMARY: Different optic neuropathies will benefit from neuro-protective versus neuro-regenerative approaches. Developing clinically effective treatments for optic nerve disease will require a collaborative approach that not only employs neurotrophic factors but also incorporates signals that promote axonogenesis, direct axon growth towards intended targets, and promote appropriate synaptogenesis.

Indexed as

AnimalsAxonsHumansNerve RegenerationNeuroprotectionOptic NerveOptic Nerve DiseasesOptic Nerve Injuries

Identifiers

PMID31809331
PMCPMC8153234
OpenAlexW2993290754

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.