Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sekundärglaukom bei Uveitis: Relevant – oder redundant?

Oder: Eine Ermutigung zum Querdenken...

Secondary glaucoma in uveitis: relevent—or redundant?

Or: Lateral thinking required...

  • Einführung zum Thema
  • Published:
Der Ophthalmologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Bakalash S, Shlomo GB, Aloni E et al. (2005) T-cell-based vaccination for morphological and functional neuroprotection in a rat model of chronically elevated intraocular pressure. J Mol Med 83: 904–916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ohlmann A, Tamm ER (2002) The role of myocilin in the pathogenesis of primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmologe 99: 672–677

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Stone EM, Fingert JH, Alward WL et al. (1997) Identification of a gene that causes primary open angle glaucoma. Science 275: 668–670

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tezel G, Wax MB (2000) The mechanisms of hsp27 antibody-mediated apoptosis in retinal neuronal cells. J Neurosci 15 (20): 3552–3562

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tezel G, Seigel GM, Wax MB (1998) Autoantibodies to small heat shock proteins in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39: 2277–2287

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Charité Universitäts-Augenklinik, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland

    U. Pleyer

Authors
  1. U. Pleyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Pleyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pleyer, U. Sekundärglaukom bei Uveitis: Relevant – oder redundant?. Ophthalmologe 105, 429–430 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-008-1738-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-008-1738-7

Search

Navigation