There are two important elements when we consider the pathogenesis of ROP: the growth of the avascular area and the subsequent neovascular reaction. In our study, treatment with E2 during hyperoxia (P7–P11) increased VEGF mRNA expression back to the control level
(Fig. 8A) , which is compatible with the in vitro effect of E2 under normoxia
(Fig. 2C) . This restored VEGF expression also seemed to help the retinal vascularization, significantly reducing the avascular area by P12
(Fig. 6I) . In contrast, on P17 after the period of room air, a relatively hypoxic period after the hyperoxia, VEGF mRNA increased in mice with oxygen and vehicle treatment, but treatment with E2 during the relative hypoxic period significantly reduced the VEGF gene’s induction in the oxygen-treated mice
(Fig. 8B) . This inhibition of VEGF upregulation by E2 under hypoxia is again compatible with our in vitro data
(Fig. 2) . More significantly, this decrease in VEGF level seemed to be well reflected in the extraretinal neovascular nuclei counts in retinal sections
(Fig. 7E) . These suggest that estrogen may help retinal vessel growth under hyperoxia by restoring VEGF expression when hyperoxia reduces the level of VEGF genes and inhibits vessel extension, and that in relative hypoxia, estrogen may, in contrast, inhibit hypoxia-induced upregulation of the VEGF gene and may reduce extraretinal neovascularization. Avascular area and neovascularization are often interpreted as the cause and the result, but our results in mice that received E2 from P7 to P11 seem to contradict this general concept. In this group, the avascular area was significantly reduced on P12, but the number of neovascular nuclei on P17 was in a range similar to that in mice treated with vehicle
(Fig. 7E) . In this group of mice, there was still 20% to 30% of avascular area remained even though reduced, which could be enough to trigger extraretinal neovascularization. Because the expression level of the VEGF gene on P17 was not statistically different from that of vehicle-treated group, the moderately elevated level of VEGF may still have contributed to enhancement of the extraretinal neovascular reaction. In other words, how much avascular area is enough to cause extraretinal neovascularization and how much excess of VEGF may enhance this angiogenic reaction appears to be a matter of threshold. These thresholds may also vary between individuals, and we think that this rather unexpected result in this group is due to the possibility that they were at some specific point in these thresholds. These led us to further postulate that under these different oxygen conditions, changes in the level of VEGF induction may critically affect extraretinal angiogenesis and therefore the role of E2 may become important as a modulator of the level of VEGF induction. Recovery of avascular area between P12 and P17 cannot be explained in a simple manner by the VEGF expression level either. In mice with E2 treatment from P7 to P11 extraretinal neovascularization was enhanced, but the avascular area was not reduced, whereas P12 to P16 mice had a good reduction in avascular area, even though VEGF expression was low
(Fig 8B) . These indicate that during the relative hypoxic period in our model, the level of VEGF gene expression seems to be more closely related to the extraretinal neovascular reaction than to retinal vessel extension. It may suggest that retinal extension and/or maturation may require factors other than VEGF. At least from our present data, it is likely that to obtain the best effect of E2 on ROP, E2 seems to be required throughout the entire hyperoxic and relative hypoxic periods.