No abstract

Our current understanding of the development of refractive errors, in particular myopia, would be substantially limited had Wiesel and Raviola not discovered by accident that monkeys develop axial myopia as a result of deprivation of form vision. Similarly, if Josh Wallman and colleagues had not found that simple plastic goggles attached to the chicken eye generate large amounts of myopia, the chicken model would perhaps not have become such an important animal model. Contrary to previous assumptions about the mechanisms of myopia, these animal models suggested that eye growth is visually controlled locally by the retina, that an afferent connection to the brain is not essential and that emmetropisation uses more sophisticated cues than just the magnitude of retinal blur. While animal models have shown that the retina can determine the sign of defocus, the underlying mechanism is still not entirely clear. Animal models have also provided knowledge about the biochemical nature of the signal cascade converting the output of retinal image processing to changes in choroidal thickness and scleral growth; however, a critical question was, and still is, can the results from animal models be applied to myopia in children? While the basic findings from chickens appear applicable to monkeys, some fundamental questions remain. If eye growth is guided by visual feedback, why is myopic development not self-limiting? Why does undercorrection not arrest myopic progression even though positive lenses induce myopic defocus, which leads to the development of hyperopia in emmetropic animals? Why do some spectacle or contact lens designs reduce myopic progression and others not? It appears that some major differences exist between animals reared with imposed defocus and children treated with various optical corrections, although without the basic knowledge obtained from animal models, we would be lost in an abundance of untestable hypotheses concerning human myopia.

Although it has been shown that different mouse strains may have differently large eyes, the present study shows that a specific gene knockout can produce relative myopia, compared with the wild-type with near-identical genetic background. Further experiments are needed to determine whether the observed effects of Egr-1 deletion are due to changes in function within the retina or other ocular tissues or to changes of function in other systems that may affect ocular growth from outside the eye.

No abstract

Purpose. To test whether the interanimal variability in susceptibility to visually induced myopia is genetically determined. Methods. Monocular deprivation of sharp vision (DSV) was induced in outbred White Leghorn chicks aged 4 days. After 4 days' DSV, myopia susceptibility was quantified by the relative changes in axial length and refraction. Chicks in the extreme tails of the distribution of susceptibility to DSV were kept and paired for breeding (high- and low-susceptibility lines). A second round of selection was then performed. The third generation of chicks, derived from the selected parents, was assessed after either monocular DSV (4 or 10 days) or lens wear. Results. After two rounds of selective breeding, the chicks from the high-susceptibility line developed approximately twice as much myopia in response to 4 days' DSV as did those from the low-susceptibility line (P < 0.001). All ocular component dimensions differed significantly (P < 0.001) between the two selected lines, both before treatment and in the responses of the treated eye. When DSV was conducted for 10 days, the relative changes in axial length and refractive error were still significantly different between the high and low lines (P < 0.001). The chicks bred for high or low susceptibility to DSV also showed significantly different responses to minus lens wear, but not to plus lens wear. Additive genetic effects explained ∼50% of the interanimal variability in response to DSV. Conclusions. Genes and environment interact to shape refractive development in chicks.