Latanoprost Stimulates Ocular Lymphatic Drainage: An In Vivo Nanotracer Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: : Ocular lymphatics have been recently shown to contribute to aqueous humor outflow. It is not yet known whether lymphatic outflow can be stimulated by pharmacological agents. Here we determine whether latanoprost, a prostaglandin F2 alpha analog commonly used to lower IOP to treat glaucoma, increases lymphatic drainage from the eye. Methods: : Lymphatic drainage in mice was assessed in vivo, in 11 latanoprost-treated and 11 control animals using hyperspectral imaging at multiple times following quantum dot (QD) injection into the eye. QD signal intensity was also measured in tissue sections using hyperspectral imaging. Results: : In the latanoprost-treated group, lymphatic drainage rate into the submandibular lymph node was increased compared with controls (1.23 ± 1.06 hours−1 vs. 0.30 ± 0.17 hours−1, mean ± SD, P < 0.02). Total QD signal intensity in the submandibular lymph node was greater in the latanoprost-treated group compared with controls (10.55 ± 1.12 vs. 9.48 ± 1.24, log scale, P < 0.05). Conclusions: : This is the first evidence that latanoprost increases lymphatic drainage from the eye. The pharmacological manipulation of this newly identified lymphatic outflow pathway may be relevant to treatments aimed at lowering intraocular pressure in glaucoma. Translational Relevance: : This is the first evidence that a prostaglandin drug widely prescribed for glaucoma, enhances lymphatic drainage from the eye. The pharmacological stimulation of this newly identified outflow pathway may be highly relevant to treatments aimed at lowering IOP to prevent blindness from glaucoma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".