After just 1 day of optical defocus, EH but not NZ animals exhibited optical sign-dependent, bidirectional changes in choroidal thickness, measured by A-scan ultrasonography, although bidirectional response patterns were evident after 5 days of optical defocus in NZ animals (
Fig. 2A). Specifically, in EH animals, choroidal thinning was seen in response to the −2 D lenses (−16 ± 5 μm), which was much larger than the thickening response elicited by the +2 D lenses (+2 ± 5 μm). The thinning response in EH animals was also approximately double the magnitude of, and significantly different from, the changes induced by the −2 D lenses in the NZ animals (
P < 0.01, unpaired
t-test). Furthermore, over this short treatment period, NZ animals exhibited choroidal thinning, regardless of the sign of imposed defocus (i.e., −6 ± 4 μm versus −6 ± 4 μm for −2 D and +2 D lenses, respectively). However, after 5 days of optical defocus, the choroids of NZ animals treated with +2 D lenses were significantly thicker (+6 ± 5 μm), than the choroids of eyes treated with −2 D lenses, which remained thinned (−8 ± 4 μm) (
P < 0.05, unpaired
t-test). The choroids of the EH animals continued to exhibit distinct bidirectional responses that were also significantly different from each other (−2 D versus +2 D: −17 ± 6 μm versus +10 ± 6 μm,
P < 0.01, unpaired
t-test). In summary, the EH guinea pigs showed early, enduring bidirectional choroidal responses to positive and negative lenses, whereas for NZ guinea pigs, the thickening response to positive lenses emerged more slowly.
The axial length changes induced by the optical defocus treatments are shown in
Figure 2B. Although none of the changes (i.e., after either 1 or 5 days of optical defocus) proved to be statistically significant for either strain, curiously over the time frame of this study only the EH strain showed an apparent trend of increased axial elongation after 5 days of optical defocus imposed with negative lenses.
The EH and NZ animals also exhibited different responses with regard to induced changes in refractive error (
Fig. 2C). After 5 days of optical defocus treatment, NZ animals exhibited a hyperopic shift in response to the +2 D lens treatment (+0.81 ± 0.51 D) and a myopic shift with the −2 D lens treatment (−1.75 ± 0.56 D), these different responses being statistically significant (
P = 0.003, unpaired
t-test). In contrast, the changes in refractive error in EH animals were smaller for the −2 D lens treatment (−0.23 ± 0.50 D) and not significantly different from those induced by the +2 D lens treatment (+0.73 ± 0.34 D,
P = 0.13, unpaired
t-test). The apparent mismatch between changes in refractive error and axial length suggest optical contributions to the refractive error changes recorded in NZ animals, a point taken up again in the discussion.