June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Developmental Circadian Disruption Alters Refractive Development in Mice
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Danielle ClarksonTownsend
    Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
    Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia, United States
  • Kelleigh Hogan
    Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia, United States
    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  • Dillon Brown
    Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia, United States
    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  • Machelle T Pardue
    Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia, United States
    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Danielle ClarksonTownsend, None; Kelleigh Hogan, None; Dillon Brown, None; Machelle Pardue, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  This material is based upon work supported by the National Institutes of Health (NICHD F31 HD097918 to D.CT, NIEHS T32 ES012870 to D.CT), and R01 EY016435 to MTP) and the Department of Veterans Affairs Research Career Scientist Award (RX003134 to M.T.P.).
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 1397. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Danielle ClarksonTownsend, Kelleigh Hogan, Dillon Brown, Machelle T Pardue; Developmental Circadian Disruption Alters Refractive Development in Mice. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):1397.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Circadian rhythms in ocular tissues play important roles in homeostasis, photoreceptor disc shedding, and visual function and are also thought to influence ocular growth and emmetropization. To test whether circadian disruption caused by environmental light affects refractive development, we utilized an experimental model of environmental circadian disruption and longitudinally measured refractive error in mice.

Methods : Wild-type C57Bl/6J male and female mice were developmentally exposed throughout gestation and after weaning to either a control light (CL, 12:12 light:dark, n=17-20) or environmental circadian disruption (CD, weekly light:dark inversions, n=16-22) light cycle. Refractive error (photorefractometry), corneal curvature (keratometry), and eye biometry (spectral domain optical coherence tomography) were measured at 4, 5, and 6 weeks of age. A mixed-effects analysis with Sidak’s method to control for multiple comparisons (significance threshold p<0.05) was performed to test for differences in refractive error and corneal curvature by treatment group and time. Student’s unpaired t-tests (significance threshold p<0.05) were used to evaluate differences in eye biometry measures in a subset of mice (n=14 CL, n=12 CD) at 4 weeks of age.

Results : Mice in the CD group had greater refraction values compared to CL at 4, 5, and 6 weeks of age (Figure 1, main effect of group, F (1, 41) = 174.7, p<0.001). Corneal curvature does not appear to significantly differ between groups, but eye biometry measures from a subset of mice suggest trends towards decreased corneal thickness (p=0.122), decreased lens thickness (p=0.117), and shorter axial length (p=0.283), in the CD mice.

Conclusions : These results suggest that the developmental light environment can influence refractive error. We plan to further evaluate eye biometry measures in the remaining mice at all time points. Because mice were kept in the light conditions for the duration of the experiment, it is possible that circadian changes in choroidal dynamics may also play a role in these results.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

Figure 1. Diagram of the light paradigm experimental design and measurement timepoints (left) and graph of refractive error values at 4, 5, and 6 weeks of age (right). Data are presented as mean ± SEM and analyzed using a mixed-effects model with Sidak’s correction for multiple comparisons (main effect of light: F (1, 41) = 174.7, p<0.001).

Figure 1. Diagram of the light paradigm experimental design and measurement timepoints (left) and graph of refractive error values at 4, 5, and 6 weeks of age (right). Data are presented as mean ± SEM and analyzed using a mixed-effects model with Sidak’s correction for multiple comparisons (main effect of light: F (1, 41) = 174.7, p<0.001).

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×