We demonstrated previously that rod sensitivity to light exposure was attributed to the T17M rhodopsin mutation because transgenic P23H rhodopsin mice were insensitive to a 5000 lux, 2.5-minute light exposure.
28 To extend this finding with the illumination protocol used in the present study and to test whether cone function was affected, we examined BALB/c mice, often used as a model in phototoxicity studies, and transgenic P23H rhodopsin and
noerg-1 (C110Y rhodopsin) mice, which model autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa. At 5 days after light exposure, no significant differences in the scotopic or photopic ERG responses of illuminated and unilluminated eyes were observed in BALB/c mice
(Fig. 6) . A slight effect was observed in P23H mice (scotopic a-wave amplitude ratio 0.87,
P = 0.004,
n = 9; photopic b-wave amplitude ratio 1.18,
P = 0.04,
n = 9) and C110Y mice (photopic a-wave amplitude ratio 0.82,
P = 0.004,
n = 10). Other ERG responses in these mice did not differ significantly with light exposure. These results suggest the illumination protocol induces minimal rod or cone photoreceptor damage in these mouse lines. Light exposure did not alter the scotopic or photopic response in
rd12 mice, which are defective in the visual cycle because of a stop mutation in the
RPE65 gene
(Fig. 6) . During the course of this study, we became aware that the photopic response in
rd12 (Hauswirth W, personal communication, October 2008) and other RPE65 null mice
42 is caused solely by rod activity; hence, these results cannot address whether light exposure affects cone function. Nevertheless, the behavior of
rd12 mice supports the claim that hypersensitivity to light damage is a unique attribute of the T17M rhodopsin mutation and not a general characteristic of retinal degeneration.