Nanoscale topography of the corneal epithelial basement membrane and Descemet's membrane of the human

PURPOSE

Quantitatively define and compare the nanoscale topography of the corneal epithelial basement membrane (anterior basement membrane) and Descemet's membrane (posterior basement membrane) of the human.

METHODS

Human corneas not suitable for transplantation were obtained from the Wisconsin Eye Bank. The corneas were placed in 2.5 mM EDTA for 2.5 h or 30 min. for removal of the epithelium or endothelium, respectively. After removal of the overlying cells, specimens were fixed in 2% glutaraldehyde and either examined in this state by atomic force microscopy only or dehydrated through an ethanol series and prepared for transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and atomic force microscopy (AFM).

RESULTS

The subepithelial and subendothelial basement membrane surfaces have a similar appearance that consists of an interwoven meshwork of fibers and pores. Topographic feature sizes were found to be in the nanometer size range with the epithelial basement membrane features larger and less densely packed than Descemet's membrane features. The topographic features are fractile in nature and increase surface area for cell contact.

CONCLUSION

With the use of the TEM, SEM, and AFM, a detailed description of the surface topography of corneal epithelial basement membrane and Descemet's membrane of the human cornea are provided. The significance of differences in corneal basement membrane topography may reflect differences in function of the overlying cells or may be related to differences in cell migration and turnover patterns between the epithelium and endothelium.

Cell viability and probe-cell membrane interactions of XR1 glial cells imaged by atomic force microscopy

As atomic force microscopy (AFM) imaging of live specimens becomes more commonplace, at least two important questions arise: 1) do live specimens remain viable during and after AFM, and 2) is there transfer of membrane components from the cell to the AFM probe during probe-membrane interactions? We imaged live XR1 glial cells in culture by single- or dual-pass contact or tapping-mode AFM, examined cell viability at various postimaging times, and report that AFM-imaged live XR1 cells remained viable up to 48 h postimaging and that cell death rates did not increase. To determine if nonlethal, transient interactions between the AFM probe and cell membrane led to transfer of XR1 cell membrane phospholipid components on the probe, we treated the scanned probes with the lipid-binding fluorophore FM 1-43. Confocal microscopy revealed that phospholipid membrane components did accumulate on the probe, and to a generally greater extent during contact-mode imaging than during tapping-mode imaging. Moreover, membrane accumulations on the probe were greater when live XR1 cells were damaged or perturbed, yet membrane did not accumulate in fluorescently detectable quantities during repeated "force curves" during control experiments. Taken together, our data indicate that although AFM imaging of live cells in culture does not affect long-term cell viability, there are substantial probe-membrane interactions that lead to transfer of membrane components to the probe.