Evidence mapPaperPMID 40255368Full record

ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2025

Comparative analysis of rodent lens morphometrics and biomechanical properties.

Sepideh Cheheltani, Sadia T Islam, Heather Malino, Kalekidan Abera, Sandeep Aryal, Karen Forbes, Justin Parreno, Velia M Fowler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

8 authors.

Sepideh Cheheltani *Department of Biological Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Sadia T Islam *Department of Biological Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Heather MalinoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Kalekidan AberaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Sandeep AryalDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Karen ForbesDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Justin ParrenoDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Velia M FowlerDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.

Funding

Delaware INBRE DRPP CoreP20GM103446 · UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE · 2025 to 2025
$4.7M
Chemistry-Biology Interface Predoctoral Training Grant 2024-2029T32GM133395 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE · 2024 to 2025
$1.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103446NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM133395
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Proper ocular lens function requires biomechanical flexibility, which is reduced during aging. As increasing lens size has been shown to correlate with lens biomechanical stiffness in aging, we tested the hypothesis that whole lens size determines gross biomechanical stiffness by comparing lenses of varying sizes from three rodent species (mice, rats, and guinea pigs). Methods: Coverslip compression assay was performed to measure whole lens biomechanics. Whole mount staining on fixed lenses, followed by confocal microscopy, was conducted to measure lens microstructures. Results: Among the three species, guinea pig lenses are the largest, rat lenses are smaller than guinea pig lenses, and mouse lenses are the smallest of the three. We found that rat and guinea pig lenses are stiffer than the much smaller mouse lenses. However, despite guinea pig lenses being larger than rat lenses, whole lens stiffness between guinea pigs and rats is not different. This refutes our hypothesis and indicates that lens size does not solely determine lens stiffness. We next compared lens microstructures, including nuclear size, capsule thickness, epithelial cell area, fiber cell widths, and suture organization between mice, rats, and guinea pigs. The lens nucleus is the largest in guinea pigs, followed by rats, and mice. However, the rat nucleus occupies a larger fraction of the lens. Both lens capsule thickness and fiber cell widths are the largest in guinea pigs, followed by mice and then rats. Epithelial cells are the largest in guinea pigs, and there are no differences between mice and rats. In addition, the lens suture shape appears similar across all three species. Discussion: Overall, our data indicates that whole lens size and microstructure morphometrics do not correlate with lens stiffness, indicating that factors contributing to lens biomechanics are complex and likely multifactorial.

Indexed as

allometrylens biomechanicslens microstructureslens stiffnessmorphometrics

Identifiers

PMID40255368
PMCPMC12006193

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.