Ex vivo ERG can be used to record electrical activity of retinal cells directly from isolated intact retinas of animals or humans. We demonstrate here how common in vivo ERG systems can be adapted for ex vivo ERG recordings in order to dissect the electrical activity of retinal cells.
An In vivo electroretinogram (ERG) signal is composed of several overlapping components originating from different retinal cell types, as well as noise from extra-retinal sources. Ex vivo ERG provides an efficient method to dissect the function of retinal cells directly from an intact isolated retina of animals or donor eyes. In addition, ex vivo ERG can be used to test the efficacy and safety of potential therapeutic agents on retina tissue from animals or humans. We show here how commercially available in vivo ERG systems can be used to conduct ex vivo ERG recordings from isolated mouse retinas. We combine the light stimulation, electronic and heating units of a standard in vivo system with custom-designed specimen holder, gravity-controlled perfusion system and electromagnetic noise shielding to record low-noise ex vivo ERG signals simultaneously from two retinas with the acquisition software included in commercial in vivo systems. Further, we demonstrate how to use this method in combination with pharmacological treatments that remove specific ERG components in order to dissect the function of certain retinal cell types.
Electroretinogram (ERG) is a well-established technique that can be used to record the electrical activity of the retina triggered by light. The ERG signal is generated mainly by voltage changes caused by radial currents (along the axis of photoreceptors and bipolar cells) flowing in the resistive extracellular space of the retina. The first ERG signal was recorded in 1865 by Holmgren from the surface of a fish eye1. Einthoven and Jolly 19082 divided the ERG response to the onset of light into three different waves, called a-, b-, and c-waves, that are now known to reflect mainly the activity of photoreceptors, ON bipolar cells, and pigment epithelium cells, respectively3-8. ERG can be recorded from the eyes of anesthetized animals or humans (in vivo), from isolated eye preparation9, across isolated intact retina (ex vivo)3,10-15 or across specific retina layers with microelectrodes (local ERG)4,16. Of these, in vivo ERG is currently the most widely used method to assess retinal function. It is a noninvasive technique that can be used for diagnostic purposes or to follow the progression of retinal diseases in animals or patients. However, in vivo ERG recordings produce a complicated signal with several overlapping components, often contaminated by extraocular physiological noise (e.g., breathing and cardiac activity).
Local ERG can be used to record the signal across specific layers of the retina but it is the most invasive and has the lowest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as compared to the other ERG recording configurations. Local ERG is also technically demanding and requires expensive equipment (e.g., microscope and micromanipulators). Transretinal ERG from the intact, isolated retina (ex vivo ERG) offers a compromise between in vivo and local ERG methods allowing stable and high SNR recordings from intact retinas of animals or humans17. Recently, this method has been used successfully to study rod and cone photoreceptor function in mammalian, primate and human retinas18-20. In addition, due to absence of pigment epithelium in the ex vivo retina, the positive c-wave component of the ERG signal is removed and a prominent negative slow PIII component is revealed in the ex vivo recordings. The slow PIII component has been shown to originate from the activity of Müller glia cells in the retina21-23. Thus, ex vivo ERG method could also be used to study Müller cells in the intact retina. Several studies have also shown that ex vivo ERG recordings could be used to measure concentration of pharmacological agents around the retina24 and test the safety and efficacy of drugs25-27.
Multiple commercial in vivo systems are available and used in many laboratories that do not necessarily have extensive electrophysiology background. In contrast, ex vivo devices have not been available until recently17 and as a result only very few laboratories are currently taking advantage of this powerful technique. It would be beneficial to make ex vivo ERG recordings available to more laboratories in order to advance our knowledge about retinal physiology and pathology, and to develop new therapies for blinding diseases. We demonstrate here a simple and affordable ex vivo ERG device17 and show how it can be used in combination with several commercially available in vivo ERG systems to record rod- and cone-mediated signaling (a- and b-waves) and the function of Müller cells (slow PIII) from intact wild-type mouse retinas.
All experimental protocols were in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and were approved by the institutional Animal Studies Committee at Washington University.
1. Setting Up Perfusion and Specimen Holder
2. Sample Preparation
3. Recordings
4. Cleaning
We recorded flash responses from dark-adapted wild-type (WT) C57BL/6 mouse retinas by following the experimental protocols described above and illustrated in Figure 1 by using different standard perfusion solutions (Figure 2). The response waveforms and kinetics as well as sensitivity of rod photoreceptors appeared similar in Ames’ and Locke’s media (Figure 2A and B). On the other hand, under HEPES-buffered Ringer solution (no bicarbonate or 5% CO2 / 95% O2) the response amplitudes were significantly smaller. We also found that in these conditions b-wave stability was compromised. Adding 40 μM APB (DL-AP4) removed positive b-wave efficiently in all three media (Figures 2D-F). Removal of the b-wave revealed a large slow negative wave (Figure 2D) that has been attributed to Müller cell activity21. Adding 100 μM of barium abolished this component, revealing the photoreceptor response of the ex vivo ERG signal (Figures 2D-F). We could record up to 1 mV saturated photoreceptor responses in Ames’ and Locke’s whereas maximum responses were typically around 200 μV under Ringer perfusion.
Cone photoreceptor responses have been isolated previously by so-called double flash technique where a bright probe flash saturating the rods is followed by a test flash at a time when cones have restored their dark-adapted state but rods remain saturated19,29. Here we isolated cone-mediated ERG responses (containing both a- and b-wave) in Ames’ media supplemented with 100 μM of barium but not DL-AP4 by using double flash technique (Figure 3). Barium was used to remove the slow glial component that appeared to make the late part of the responses more variable especially during repetitive use of bright flashes. We used a constant probe flash to saturate rods and variable test flashes 300 msec after the probe flash to elicit cone responses. A cone response family obtained by subtracting probe flash response from the ‘probe + test flash’ responses is shown in Figure 3B.
Figure 1. Use of ex vivo ERG specimen holder. (A) Filling of electrode channels and mounting of the electrodes. (B) Testing of the assembled specimen holder before dissection by measuring the resistance and voltage between the electrode pairs. (C) Mounting of the retina on the filter paper in the specimen holder. (D) The specimen holder connected to the perfusion lines and ERG amplifier in the commercial ERG system. The perfusion flow path is indicated by blue arrows. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2. Flash response families recorded from dark-adapted WT mouse retinas perfused with Locke’s (A), Ames’ (B), and HEPES-buffered Ringer (C) medium. The flashes delivered 3, 40, 130, 390 and 1,400 photons μm-2 (from -36 to -9 dB or -3.6 to -0.9 log(Cd sm-2) green light (530 nm)). Black traces in (D-F) show responses recorded from retinas in (A-C) after addition of 40 μM APB and 100 μM barium. Red traces in (D) show responses recorded from the retina in (A) perfused with Locke’s supplemented with 40 μM APB but not barium. The inset shows the responses to the three dimmest flashes in Locke’s media containing APB and barium. The flashes ranged from 7 to 14,000 photons μm-2 (from -32 to 1 dB green light) in (D), from 3 to 1,400 photons μm-2 (from -36 to -9 dB green light) in (E), and from 7 to 1,400 photons μm-2 (from -32 to -9 dB green light) in (F). See Vinberg et al. 201417 and Lyubarsky et al. 199930 and 200431 for details of converting photopic luminous energy given in Cd sm-2 to photons μm-2. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3. Isolation of cone responses with double flash method in WT mouse. (A) A response to probe flash (14,000 photons μm-2 or 1 dB green light, black) and a response to probe flash followed by a test flash (81,000 photons μm-2 or 9 dB green light, red). (B) Cone flash responses to test flashes ranging from 360 to 81,000 photons μm-2 (-14 to 10 dB green light) isolated by subtracting the probe flash response from the “probe + test flash” response. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
We demonstrate here the critical steps for obtaining high-quality ex vivo ERG recordings simultaneously from two isolated mouse retinas by using in vivo ERG system components together with an ex vivo ERG adapter. In this study we perfused both retinas from the animal with the same solution (either Ames’, Locke’s or Ringer) but it is also possible to perfuse each retina with a different solution e.g., for drug testing purposes. The most important steps for obtaining high quality data are shielding from electromagnetic noise, careful dissection of the retina, steady and relatively rapid perfusion flow by using an advanced custom-built specimen holder, and performing all sample preparation procedures under dim red (or IR) light. The method described here allows immediate use of both retinas and dual use of an in vivo ERG setup to perform in vivo and ex vivo ERG recordings.
The custom-built ex vivo ERG specimen holder recently designed by us17, and now commercially available, improves SNR by efficient electrical isolation of the proximal and distal parts of the retina and optimizes perfusion flow above the retina (high solution exchange rate). Absence of the slow frequency noise components in ex vivo ERG signal allows quantitative analysis even from very small responses. However, we found that ex vivo recording is more prone to interference of AC-power line noise (60 Hz in the US; 50 Hz in Europe) than in vivo experiments. This noise coupled to the signal mainly through the perfusion line, and it could be mostly removed by shielding (and grounding) all perfusion components (bottle, tubing) residing outside of the Faraday cage or Ganzfeld sphere. In addition, sometimes 60 Hz noise coupled to the ex vivo ERG signal through the heat exchanger and this noise could also be removed by grounding.
We demonstrate how to remove specific ERG signal components by adding pharmacological blockers into the perfusion during the experiment allowing dissection of the function of different cell types in the same retina/experiment with three different physiological perfusion media (Figure 2). A recent study showed that the choice of perfusion media affects photoreceptor physiology in single cell recordings32. Here we used Ames’, Locke’s and ‘HEPES-Ringer’ media to record dark-adapted flash responses in the absence and presence of pharmacological reagents intended to isolate the photoreceptor component of the ERG signal (Figure 2). Bicarbonate-buffered solutions gave larger a- and b-wave amplitudes, up to 1 mV. Photoreceptor dim flash responses under Locke’s medium with blockers contained complicated recovery waveform (see inset of Figure 2D) that was not seen with Ames’ or Ringer perfusion. When the use of ex vivo ERG becomes adapted by more laboratories it would be helpful to use the same perfusion media and standard methods to isolate different signal components. At this point it seems that the most versatile option is the Ames’ medium because it gives stable and large a- and b-wave amplitudes. In addition, the photoreceptor response, isolated pharmacologically in this solution, appears to have a simple waveform reminiscent of that recorded from single photoreceptors (Figure 2E). Yet, some open questions remain about the existence of other ERG signal components observed under in vivo conditions. For example, in our ex vivo recording conditions we did not see prominent oscillatory potentials, 100 – 150 Hz oscillating waves that are typically observed in the rising phase of the b-wave of an in vivo ERG response. It is thus possible that the inner retina function in our ex vivo conditions was compromised although large ex vivo b-waves implicated viable ON bipolar cell function. Future studies should resolve whether modifications in the experimental protocols shown here (dissection, perfusion etc.) would allow us to record oscillatory potentials under ex vivo conditions.
Cone function is vital for our vision. However, investigation of cones is hampered by their small size and scarcity especially in the mouse retina33. Isolation of cone function is further complicated in mouse ERG recordings because their M-cones and rods have almost identical spectral sensitivities30. Standard protocols take advantage of the several log-unit difference between rod and cone sensitivities by using rod-suppressing background light. However, steady background light is known to desensitize rods34,35 and affect cone function possibly through modulation of gap junctional coupling between rods and cones36,37. Thus, it is hard to find a background light intensity that is bright enough to keep rods saturated without affecting cones. Here we demonstrate an alternative double flash method that takes advantage of both the lower sensitivity and faster recovery kinetics of cones19,29,30. In this way it is easier to isolate truly dark-adapted cone-mediated responses. We noticed that in Ames’ or Locke’s solutions without any blockers, the details of the recovery waveform were somewhat affected during the course of the experiment by the use of bright probe and test flashes. This complicated the subtraction analysis to isolate the cone responses. However, removing the glial component by barium helped to stabilize the tail of the responses indicating that the variability was due to the Müller cell component. In this way it was possible to obtain dark-adapted cone-driven responses in WT mice (Figure 3). Cone responses isolated by double flash technique from WT mice appeared smaller as compared to those recorded from WT mice by using background light to suppress rod activity17,37. This difference can be explained by a well-characterized effect of background light that slowly (within 10 min) enhances cone response amplitudes probably due to removal of the rod-mediated suppression of cone responses37-39.
In summary, the method demonstrated here makes possible ex vivo electrophysiological recordings to study the function of the retina. In the future, we hope that many more laboratories will adapt this powerful method to study the physiology and pathology of animal and human retina and to advance our understanding of retinal function and develop better therapies for blinding diseases.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This work was supported by NIH grants EY019312 and EY021126 (VJK), EY002687 to the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at Washington University, and by Research to Prevent Blindness.
In vivo ERG system | OcuScience | HMsERG | www.ocuscience.us/id77.html |
In vivo ERG system | LKC Technologies | UTAS-E 3000 | www.lkc.com/products/UTAS/bigshot.html |
Ex vivo adapter | OcuScience | Ex VIVO ERG adapter | www.ocuscience.us/id107.html |
Dissection microscope | North Central Instruments | Leica M80 | May use any brand |
IR emitter | Opto Diode Corp. | OD-50L | www.optodiode.com |
Prowler Night Vision Scopes | B.E. Meyers Electro Optics | D4300-I | Military grade product. |
Red filter | Rosco Laboratories | Roscolux #27 Medium Red | May be used instead of IR system |
Red head light | OcuScience | ERGX011 | www.ocuscience.us/catalog/i29.html |
Microscissors | WPI, Inc. | 500086 | www.wpiinc.com/ |
Dumont tweezers #5 | WPI, Inc. | 14101 | |
Razor blades | Electron Microscopy Sciences | 72000 | www.emsdiasum.com |
Scale | Metler Toledo | AB54-S/FACT | May use any brand |
pH meter and electrode | Beckman Coulter | pHI 350 | May use any brand |
NaCl | Sigma-Aldrich | S7653 | May use any brand |
KCl | Sigma-Aldrich | 60129 | May use any brand |
MgCl2 | Sigma-Aldrich | 63020 | 1.0 M solution |
CaCl2 | Sigma-Aldrich | 21114 | 1.0 M solution |
EDTA | Sigma-Aldrich | 431788 | May use any brand |
HEPES | Sigma-Aldrich | H3375 | May use any brand |
Sodium Bicarbonate | Sigma-Aldrich | S6297 | May use any brand |
Ames medium | Sigma-Aldrich | A1420 | May use any brand |
BaCl2 | Sigma-Aldrich | B0750 | May use any brand |
DL-AP4 | Tocris Bioscience | 101 | May use any brand |
Succinic acid disodium salt | Sigma-Aldrich | 224731 | May use any brand |
L-Glutamic acid | Sigma-Aldrich | G2834 | May use any brand |
D-(+)-Glucose | Sigma-Aldrich | G7528 | May use any brand |
Leibovitz culture medium L-15 | Sigma-Aldrich | L4386 | May use any brand |
MEM vitamins | Sigma-Aldrich | M6895 | |
MEM amino acids | Sigma-Aldrich | M5550 | |
Carbogen | Airgas | UN3156 | 5% CO2 |