The use of transgenic and mutant mouse models provides an opportunity to test functionally the pathways and specific elements of the proposed pathways. In this way, we can begin to determine more clearly the signals controlling refractive development.
Other mammalian and avian species undergo emmetropization during early development which starts with hyperopia and decreases to near-zero refractive error.
17 46 As shown in this study and others,
27 47 refractive development for the mouse begins with hyperopic refractions but then continues to progress to more hyperopic refractive errors. Because of the small-eye artifact, all refractive measurements in the mouse appear hyperopic, presumably due to the retinoscopic reflection coming from the inner limiting membrane instead of the outer limiting membrane.
30
Mice, like other mammalian and avian models, are susceptible to form-deprivation myopia (FDM) induced by lid suture (Beuerman RW, et al.
IOVS 2003;44:ARVO E-Abstract 4338),
48 diffuser goggles,
27 and spectacle lenses (Beuerman RW, et al.
IOVS 2003;44:ARVO E-Abstract 4338; Barathi VA, et al.
IOVS 2007;48:ARVO E-Abstract 4418). The data shown herein confirm the refractive shift reported in the WT mice from other studies (Beuerman RW, et al.
IOVS 2003;44:ARVO E-Abstract 4338)
27 48 and demonstrate an increased susceptibility to myopia in a mouse model of a human disease also associated with high myopia. Another mutant mouse model with reported refractive abnormalities is the
Egr1 KO mouse, which also exhibits relative myopia.
49 Egr1 is the mouse orthologue of ZENK, a transcription factor found in chicken glucagon amacrine cells. Although glucagon-containing amacrine cells have not been found in the mouse, Egr1
may be involved in the regulation of eye growth. In addition, we have reported that mice with retinal defects have different unmanipulated refractive errors (Faulkner AE, et al.
IOVS 2007;48:ARVO E-Abstract 4419). These studies demonstrate the power of mouse models in which specific genetic mutations, disease states, and environmental conditions can be studied simultaneously.
One limitation of the present study was our inability to determine what eye size parameters were changing to produce altered refractive errors. Myopia has been shown to be associated with increased axial length in other myopia models.
13 17 In chickens and primates, changes in axial length are easily measured with calipers,
50 51 cryosections,
52 or ultrasound.
53 54 In contrast, in the small mouse eye, a 1-D change in refractive error is calculated to correspond to a 5-μm change in axial length.
55 Thus, ultrasound does not have the needed sensitivity to detect changes in axial length. Similarly, in our experience video morphology and cryosections produced measurement errors of 0.08 and 0.14 mm, respectively (Pardue MT, et al.
IOVS 2004;45:ARVO E-Abstract 4281). Based on the model eye calculations, the mouse would need to shift 16 to 28 D to detect differences in axial length with these techniques. Coherence interferometry has been shown to have the accuracy to measure the mouse eye
47 56 ; however, the only commercial instrument with this technology is currently not FDA-approved for use in the United States. In addition, to date, no study has reported axial length changes and refractive errors that agree with the theoretical measurements based on the mouse model eye.
47 48 Resolution of these discrepancies in measurements and further characterization of the changes in eye dimensions in the mouse will occur as more sensitive imaging technologies are applied to the mouse eye.