Literature DB >> 22245708

Effects of hemiretinal form deprivation on central refractive development and posterior eye shape in chicks.

Chin-hung Chu1, Li Deng, Chea-su Kee.   

Abstract

We determined effects of hemiretinal form deprivation (i.e., form-depriving half of the retina) on central refractive development and posterior eye shape in chicks. Seventy-seven White Leghorn chicks were randomly assigned to receive superior (SRD, "Superior Retinal Deprivation" or inferior visual field deprivation, same principle applies for the following abbreviations, n=17), inferior (IRD, n=14), temporal (TRD, n=23) or nasal hemiretinal (NRD, n=23) form deprivation monocularly from day 5 to day 26. Central refractive errors, expressed as interocular difference in spherical equivalent (M), J0 and J45 astigmatic components, were measured using Hartinger refractometer at the beginning and weekly after treatment for 3weeks. At the end of the treatment period, eyes of a subset of birds were enucleated and eye shape profile was photographed along four different meridians. These digital images were later processed to extract axial length (AL), equatorial diameter (ED), and AL/ED. For comparison purposes, the eye shape profile was also acquired from a separate group of birds reared with monocular full-retinal form deprivation (FRD, n=10). The four hemiretinal form deprivations altered central ametropia and posterior eye shape to different degrees. The biggest contrast in M was found between SRD and IRD groups (mean±SE after 3weeks: SRD=-4.14±0.71 D vs. IRD=+1.24±0.36 D; p<0.05), whereas subtle differences in J0 and J45 components were found across the four treatment groups (both p⩽0.03). SRD group also showed significantly higher AL/ED ratio compared to IRD and NRD groups (0.76±0.05 vs. 0.74±0.07 and 0.75±0.04; both p⩽0.03). Furthermore, M was significantly correlated with AL/ED ratio in the treated eyes of hemiretinal treated chicks (r=-0.55, p<0.001). Our results suggest that mechanism regulating central ametropia can be influenced by selectively interrupting the visual experience at different parts of visual field.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22245708     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.12.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  5 in total

Review 1.  IMI - Report on Experimental Models of Emmetropization and Myopia.

Authors:  David Troilo; Earl L Smith; Debora L Nickla; Regan Ashby; Andrei V Tkatchenko; Lisa A Ostrin; Timothy J Gawne; Machelle T Pardue; Jody A Summers; Chea-Su Kee; Falk Schroedl; Siegfried Wahl; Lyndon Jones
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Effects of optically imposed astigmatism on early eye growth in chicks.

Authors:  Chin Hung Geoffrey Chu; Chea Su Kee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Recovery From Form-Deprivation Myopia in Chicks Is Dependent Upon the Fullness and Correlated Color Temperature of the Light Spectrum.

Authors:  Arumugam R Muralidharan; Shermaine W Y Low; Yong Chong Lee; Veluchamy A Barathi; Seang-Mei Saw; Dan Milea; Raymond P Najjar
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  Region-specific differential corneal and scleral mRNA expressions of MMP2, TIMP2, and TGFB2 in highly myopic-astigmatic chicks.

Authors:  Lisa Yan-Yan Xi; Shea Ping Yip; Sze Wan Shan; Jody Summers-Rada; Chea-Su Kee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Altered Expression of GJD2 Messenger RNA and the Coded Protein Connexin 36 in Negative Lens-induced Myopia of Guinea Pigs.

Authors:  Qiurong Zhu; Guoyuan Yang; Bingjie Chen; Fengyang Liu; Xia Li; Longqian Liu
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 2.106

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.