FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2044577237> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2044577237 endingPage "2303" @default.
• W2044577237 startingPage "2303" @default.
• W2044577237 abstract "Cataract is the leading cause of blindness in the world, accounting for approximately 42% of all blindness.1 Surgical treatment of cataracts imposes a substantial economic burden on health systems. Since cataract is primarily a disease of old age, we are facing a looming cataract epidemic in which the demand for cataract surgery will place greater demands on the resources available for treatment. An alternative approach to surgery is the development of therapies designed to prevent or delay the onset of cataract. It is therefore not surprising that the ultimate goal of many international lens research groups is to determine the causes of lens cataract, with a view toward developing novel anticataract therapies. A major obstacle to achieving this laudable goal is our current understanding of how the normal lens maintains its transparency. It has been proposed that the lens operates an internal microcirculation system that contributes to lens transparency by delivering nutrients to, and removing metabolic wastes from, the deep fiber cells while maintaining steady state lens volume (the lens fluid circulation model [FCM]).2–4 Key features of the model remain to be tested. Such scientific debate is a normal and healthy component of the research discovery process, but the lack of an accepted understanding of lens physiology is compromising progress toward the ultimate goal of developing targeted anticataract therapies.The purpose of the two perspectives presented in Point/Counterpoint is to formalize this debate. Evidence for and against the FCM will be presented, with the goal of identifying areas of future experimentation that are needed to test its validity. A general overview of the model is provided, followed by a summary of the evidence supporting it by Richard Mathias, Paul Donaldson, and Linda Musil. In the Counterpoint, David Beebe and Roger Truscott present a critique of the model. These articles are followed by brief rebuttals that summarize the critical experiments needed to test the model.It is important to acknowledge that our understanding of lens physiology has evolved from an initial view of the lens as inert tissue to one that recognizes it as a complex and dynamic organ. This evolution in understanding was initially driven by advances in histologic and electrophysiological recording techniques and then by our ability to determine the molecular identity and cellular localization of key transport proteins associated with the circulation system. Most recently, the ability to combine whole lens electrophysiological recording with transgenic animal models has enabled us to study the physiological roles that specific lens proteins play in the maintenance of lens transparency. It is highly likely that the application of new technologies to the lens will cause us to further modify our current understanding of lens structure and function, a summary of which is provided herein." @default.
• W2044577237 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2044577237 creator A5003905457 @default.
• W2044577237 creator A5031408337 @default.
• W2044577237 creator A5071984892 @default.
• W2044577237 date "2010-05-01" @default.
• W2044577237 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2044577237 title "Point: A Critical Appraisal of the Lens Circulation Model—An Experimental Paradigm for Understanding the Maintenance of Lens Transparency?" @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1481400293 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1744641194 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1944557939 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1947025246 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1965586926 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1968142233 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1977370084 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1991369968 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1994050512 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1997102739 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1998441660 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W1998737489 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2013032576 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2014138347 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2014679165 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2039961720 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2045170222 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2045508167 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2053653653 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2058232286 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2066303560 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2071951393 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2072982588 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2079032897 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2091351443 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2095298709 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2108047477 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2111630397 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2113966521 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2130789229 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2134569771 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2136639427 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2139783067 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2141065792 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2142835074 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2149822541 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2168734089 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2333124766 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W2475802025 @default.
• W2044577237 cites W30991257 @default.
• W2044577237 doi "https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-5350" @default.
• W2044577237 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2868479" @default.
• W2044577237 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20435604" @default.
• W2044577237 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2044577237 type Work @default.
• W2044577237 sameAs 2044577237 @default.
• W2044577237 citedByCount "45" @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372012 @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372013 @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372014 @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372015 @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372016 @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372017 @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372019 @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372020 @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372021 @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372022 @default.
• W2044577237 countsByYear W20445772372023 @default.
• W2044577237 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2044577237 hasAuthorship W2044577237A5003905457 @default.
• W2044577237 hasAuthorship W2044577237A5031408337 @default.
• W2044577237 hasAuthorship W2044577237A5071984892 @default.
• W2044577237 hasBestOaLocation W20445772371 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C11111821 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C152541439 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C15336307 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C2780233690 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C28719098 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C43091099 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C57879066 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C11111821 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C120665830 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C121332964 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C142724271 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C152541439 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C15336307 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C204787440 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C2524010 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C2780233690 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C28719098 @default.
• W2044577237 hasConceptScore W2044577237C33923547 @default.

• next