Constant light rearing disrupts compensation to imposed- but not induced-hyperopia and facilitates compensation to imposed myopia in chicks.

摘要

PURPOSE: While rearing chicks in constant light (CL) inhibits anterior segment growth, these conditions also induce excessive enlargement of the vitreous chamber. The mechanisms underlying these effects are poorly understood although it has been speculated that the enlarged vitreous chambers are a product of emmetropization, a compensatory response to the altered anterior segments. We examined the ability of eyes to compensate to defocusing lenses in CL as a direct test of their ability to emmetropize. We also studied recovery responses, i.e. from lens-induced changes in CL as well as CL-induced changes alone or combined with lens-induced changes in eyes returned to normal diurnal lighting (NL). METHODS: Hatchling White-Leghorn chicks were reared in either CL or NL (control) lighting conditions (n=36) for 2 weeks, with lenses of either +10 or -10D power fitted to one eye of all chicks at the beginning of the second week. The lenses were removed at the end of the same week, at which time some CL chicks (n=14) were shifted to NL, the rest of the chicks remaining in their respective original lighting conditions. Retinoscopy, IR photo-keratometry and high-frequency A-scan ultrasonography were used to track refractions, corneal radii of curvature and ocular axial dimensions, respectively; data were collected on experimental days 0, 7, 9, 14 and 21. RESULTS: Under CL, eyes showed near normal, albeit slightly exaggerated responses to +10D lenses while the response to -10D lenses was disrupted. With +10D lenses, lens-wearing eyes became more hyperopic (RE), and had shorter vitreous chambers (VC) and optical axial lengths (OL) relative to their fellows by the end of the lens period [RE: +10.5+/-1.5D, CL, +8.25+/-2.5D, NL; VC: -0.363+/-0.129mm, CL; -0.306+/-0.110mm, NL; OL: -0.493+/-0.115mm, CL, -0.379+/-0.106mm, NL (mean interocular difference+/-SD)]. With -10D lenses, the NL group showed a myopic shift in RE and increased elongation of both VC depth and OL (RE: -10.75+/-2.0D; VC depth: 0.554+/-0.097mm; OL: 0.746+/-0.166mm), while the CL group showed a small hyperopic shift in RE (+4.0+/-6.0D). Nonetheless, CL eyes were able to recover from lens-induced hyperopia, whether they were left in CL or returned to NL. One week of exposure to NL was sufficient to reverse the effects of 2 weeks of CL on anterior and vitreous chamber dimensions. CONCLUSION: CL impairs emmetropization. Specifically, it disrupts compensation to lens-imposed hyperopia but not imposed myopia. However, CL eyes are able to recover from lens-induced hyperopia, suggesting that the mechanisms underlying the compensatory responses to defocusing lenses are different from those involved in recovery responses. The ocular growth effects of CL on young eyes are reversible under NL.