Documenta Ophthalmologica

, Volume 92, Issue 2, pp 117–136 | Cite as

Evidence for heterogeneity in a small squamous cell type (‘light’ cells) in the rabbit corneal epithelium—a scanning electron microscope study

Corneal epithelial squamous cells
Article
Accepted:

Abstract

The rabbit corneal epithelial surface, as viewed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), is composed of a mosaic of polygonal cells with different appearances (light, medium and dark) with the lighter cells having a characteristically high density of microplicae. From the central zone of the corneal epithelial surface of 16 female New Zealand White rabbits (2 kg), the lighter-appearing cells had an average area of 108±47 μm2 (n=567, ±SD). A subgroup of atypical lighter cells had an average area of 294±67 μm2 (n=53) compared to typical light cells of 88±12 μm (n=514). These atypical lighter cells had fused microplicae at their periphery (instead of a uniform arrangement of densely packed microplicae), tended to be rounder in shape (as opposed to being angular), could show signs of desquamation and were not decorated with the epithelial craters found on almost all (92%) other light cells. All of these features are suggestive of these atypical lighter cells being the terminal phenotype of the light cells just prior to desquamation from the ocular surface. The observation of the desquamation of lighter cells supports a hypothesis that they constitute a distinct sub-population of cells at the corneal epithelial surface.

Key words

Corneal Epithelium Scanning electron microscopy Squamous cells 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kuwabara T. Current concepts in anatomy and histology of the cornea. Contact Intraocular Lens Med J 1978; 4: 101–132.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergmanson JPG Chapter 4. Corneal epithelium. In: Bennett ES, Weissman BA, eds. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doughty MJ, Bergmanson JPG, Blocker Y. Impact of glutaraldehyde versus glutaraldehydeformaldehyde fixative on cell organization in fish corneal epithelium. Tissue and Cell 1995; 27: 701–712.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilson G. Chapter 1. Tear layer composition and properties. In: Bennett ES, Weissman BA, eds. Clinical Contact Lens Practice. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zajicek G, Perry A, Peer J. Streaming of labelled cells in the conjunctival epithelium. Cell Proliferat 1995; 28: 235–243.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wei Z-G, Sun T-T and Lavker RM. Rabbit conjunctival and corneal epithelial cells belong to two separate lineages. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996; 37: 523–533.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kruse FE. Stem cells and corneal epithelial regeneration. Eye 1994; 8: 170–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sokol JL, Masur SK, Asbell PA, Wolosin JM. Layer-by-layer desquamation of corneal epithelium and maturation of tear-facing membranes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990; 31: 294–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doughty MJ. On the evaluation of the corneal epithelial surface by scanning electron microscopy. Optom Vision Sci 1990; 67: 735–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hazlett LD, Wells P, Spann B, Berk RS. Epithelial desquamation in the adult-mouse cornea. A correlative TEM-SEM study. Ophthalmic Res 1980; 12: 315–323.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doughty MJ. Morphometric analysis of the surface cells of rabbit corneal epithelium by scanning electron microscopy. Am J Anat 1990; 189: 316–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doughty MJ. Evaluation of the effects of saline versus bicarbonate-containing mixed salts solutions on rabbit corneal epithelium in vitro. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1995; 15: 585–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doughty MJ, Stuart DD. Quantification of the hemolysis associated with use of T-61® as a euthanasia agent in rabbits—a comparison with Euthanyl® (pentobarbital sodium) and the impact on serum hexosaminidase measurements. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1995; 73: 1274–1280.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fahimi HD, Drochman P. Essais de standardisation de la fixation au glutaraldéhyde. I. Purification et détermination de la concentration du glutaraldéhyde. J Microse (Paris) 1965; 4: 725–736.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doughty MJ. Analyses of areas and shapes of cells on the corneal surface of the albino rabbit by scanning electron microscopy. Curr Eye Res 1990; 9: 295–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doughty MJ. Acute effects of chlorobutanol- or benzalkonium chloride-preserved artificial tears on the surface features of rabbit corneal epithelial cells. Optom Vision Sci 1994; 70: 562–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doughty MJ. Scanning electron microscopy study of cell dimensions of rabbit corneal epithelium. Cornea 1991; 10: 149–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Doughty MJ. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of twice-daily use of a chlorobutanol-preserved artificial tear on normal rabbit corneal epithelium. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1992; 12: 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hirano T, Kikkawa Y, Morimoto K, Shimada H, Iida M, Hirano Y, Togawa H, Nakazawa K. Epithelial edema of the cornea caused by maintaining the eye in an oxygen-deficient gaseous atmosphere in rabbits J Jpn Contact Lens Soc 1979; 21: 36–41.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lemp MA, Gold JB. The effects of extended wear hydrophillic contact lenses on the human corneal epithelium. Am J Ophthalmol 1986; 101: 274–277.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoffmann F. The surface of epithelial cells of the cornea under the scanning electron microscope. Ophthalmic Res 1972; 3: 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harnish JP, Hoffmann F, Dumitrescu L. Side-effects of local anesthetics on the corneal epithelium of the rabbit eye. Albrecht v. Graefes Arch. Klin. Exp. Ophthal. 1975; 197: 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brewitt H. Effect of contact lens solutions on the functional morphology of the cornea. In: Saettone MS, Bucci G, Speiser PJ, eds. Ophthalmic Drug Delivery. Biopharmaceutical, Technological and Clinical Aspects, Liuiana Press, Padua, Italy, 1987: 83–91.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brewitt, H. Traneurersatzmittel. Experimentelle und Klinische Beobachtungen. Klin Monsabl Augenheilkd 1988; 193: 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ogawa T. Studies on the toxicity of newly developed drugs for ophthalmic use done on the rabbit cornea by scanning electron microscopy (in Japanese). Acta Soc Opthalmol Jpn 1984; 88: 1093–1106.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Doughty MJ, Fong WK. Topographical differences in cell area at the surface of the corneal epithelium of the pigmented rabbit. Curr Eye Res 1992; 11: 1129–1136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clarke SM, Doughty MJ, Cullen AP. Acute effects of ultraviolet-B irradiation the corneal surface of the pigmented rabbit studied by quantitative scanning electron microscopy. Acta Ophthalmol 1990; 68: 639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Majno G, Joris I. Apoptosis, oncosis, and necrosis. An overview of cell death. Am. J. Pathol. 1995; 46: 3–15.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Amemiya T, Yoshida H, Yoshida M, Kawaji H. A study of the corneal surface with special reference to so-called epithelial hole (In Japanese). Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 1980; 84: 157–162.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pfister RR. The normal surface of corneal epithelium: a scanning electron microscopic study. Invest Ophthalmol 1973; 12: 654–668.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sugita A, Horita K, Sakisata H. Scanning electron microscopic observation of the corneal epithelium in the rabbit with special reference to the surface ultrastructure of craters (In Japanese), Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 1982; 86: 81–86.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maudgal PC, Cornelis H, Missotten L. Effects of commercial ophthalmic drugs on rabbit corneal epithelium. Albrecht von Graefes Arch. Klin. Ophthalmol. 1981; 216: 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Doughty MJ. The pathophysiology of dry eye. Practical Optometry 1991; 2: 28–35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Vision ScienceGlasgow-Caledonian UniversityGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations