Published date: Jul 23 2023

Journal Title: Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research

Issue title: July–September 2023, Volume 18, Issue 3

Pages: 272–282

DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v18i3.13775

Dhanwini RudraprasadJhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Jaishree GandhiJhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Poonam Naik Jhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Milind N NaikOphthalmic Plastic Surgery & Facial Aesthetics, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India

Chenchu NaiduOphthalmic pathology Laboratory, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Dilip Kumar MishraOphthalmic pathology Laboratory, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Joveeta Josephjoveeta@lvpei.org Jhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Purpose: Animal models are necessary in understanding the pathogenesis of endophthalmitis and are also necessary to assist the development of new therapeutics for this sight-threatening ocular inflammation. Hamilton syringes are usually preferred to inject pathogens when performing experiments on test subjects, however, this method has technical and financial disadvantages. In this study, we report the findings and assess the related benefits of applying a novel low-cost intravitreal injection technique to initiate endophthalmitis in a mouse model while using the Eppendorf tip and a 26G needle.

Methods: The 18-hr culture of clinical isolates of bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and fungus (Aspergillus flavus and Candida albicans) were resuspended to a final concentration of 10,000 colony forming units (CFU)/1 µL which were separately injected intravitreally into C57BL/6 mice (6–8 weeks) using a 0.1–2.5µL pipette attached to the modified Eppendorf tip with a 26G needle. The contralateral eye served as vehicle/uninjected control. Disease progression was determined by assessing the corneal haze, opacity, bacterial burden, and retinal histology of the eyes used in the model. Following euthanization, bacteria-infected mice were enucleated after 24 hr of the initial injection, and fungus-infected mice after 72 hr.

Results: Of the 50 mice injected, the modified technique was successful in 48 mice. Two mice were excluded due to cataract formed by accidental injury to the lens. The experimental endophthalmitis mice model successfully mimicked the natural clinical course. Clinical assessment and histopathology confirmed the influx of inflammatory cells into the posterior segment of the eye along with dissolution of retinal architecture.

Conclusion: Our novel method of injection using a modified Eppendorf tip and 26G needle yielded a cost-effective mouse model of clinical endophthalmitis, resulting in reproducible infection for understanding various aspects of its pathobiology.

Keywords: Endophthalmitis; Histopathology; Infection; Mice Model; Pathobiology

1. Keynan Y, Finkelman Y, Lagacé-Wiens P. The microbiology of endophthalmitis: Global trends and a local perspective. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;31:2879–2886.

2. Kernt M, Kampik A. Endophthalmitis: Pathogenesis, clinical presentation, management, and perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol 2010;4:121–135.

3. Kresloff MS, Castellarin AA, Zarbin MA. Endophthalmitis. Surv Ophthalmol 1998;43:193–224.

4. Sadaka A, Durand ML, Gilmore MS. Bacterial endophthalmitis in the age of outpatient intravitreal therapies and cataract surgeries: Host-microbe interactions in intraocular infection. Prog Retin Eye Res 2012;31:316–331.

5. Joseph J, Sontam B, Guda SJ, Gandhi J, Sharma S, Tyagi M, et al. Trends in microbiological spectrum of endophthalmitis at a single tertiary care ophthalmic hospital in India: A review of 25 years. Eye 2019;33:1090– 1095.

6. Engelbert M, Gilmore MS. Fas ligand but not complement is critical for control of experimental Staphylococcus aureus Endophthalmitis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:2479–2486.

7. Astley RA, Coburn PS, Parkunan SM, Callegan MC. Modeling intraocular bacterial infections. Prog Retin Eye Res 2016;54:30–48.

8. Yu DY, Cringle SJ. Oxygen distribution in the mouse retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:1109–1112.

9. Hultman D, Newman EA. A micro-advancer device for vitreal injection and retinal recording and stimulation. Exp Eye Res 2011;93:767–770.

10. Looser ZJ, Barrett MJ, Hirrlinger J, Weber B, Saab AS. Intravitreal AAV-delivery of genetically encoded sensors enabling simultaneous two-photon imaging and electrophysiology of optic nerve axons. Front Cell Neurosci 2018;12:377.

11. Ramadan RT, Ramirez R, Novosad BD, Callegan MC. Acute inflammation and loss of retinal architecture and function during experimental Bacillus endophthalmitis. Curr Eye Res 2006;31:955–965.

12. Mishra DK, Veena U, Kaliki S, Kethiri AR, Sangwan VS, Ali MH, et al. Differential expression of stem cell markers in ocular surface squamous neoplasia. PLoS One 2016;11:e0161800.

13. Won J, Shi LY, Hicks W, Wang J, Hurd R, Naggert JK, et al. Mouse model resources for vision research. J Ophthalmol 2011;2011:391384.

14. Mursalin MH, Livingston E, Coburn PS, Miller FC, Astley R, Callegan MC. Intravitreal injection and quantitation of infection parameters in a mouse model of bacterial endophthalmitis. J Vis Exp 2021;168.

15. Sugi N, Whiston EA, Ksander BR, Gregory MS. Increased resistance to Staphylococcus aureus endophthalmitis in BALB/c mice: Fas ligand is required for resolution of inflammation but not for bacterial clearance. Infect Immun 2013;81:2217–2225.