| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Electronic Letters to:
|
|
Electronic letters published:
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
Refractive Development of Mice
Author Response: Refractive Development of Mice
|
|
|||
|
Jaime Tejedor
Send letter to journal:
jtejedor.hrc{at}salud.madrid.org Jaime Tejedor
|
In the recent article by Zhou et al.1 on refractive development of mice, a comment is made in the discussion regarding a manuscript we published a few years ago which, in our opinion, demands clarification. The authors found myopic refractive errors in C57BL before 4 weeks of age, whereas after 4 weeks the refractive measurements were hyperopic, and claim there's a discrepancy between this finding and our measurements. We would like to note that we measured refractive errors at age 30 days in most animals of our study (groups A through D), and only measured refractive errors under 4 weeks in a specific group (group B, at age 23 days) which comprised 7 animals. The discrepancy may be related to the measurement procedure and conditions (we did it in darkness), which may also explain the difference observed between hyperopic measurements of Zhou et al. and another study in mice of at least 4 weeks of age.2 Another issue of interest to us is that apparently the authors found that refractive error was best correlated with corneal radius of curvature (CRC) and lens thickness (LT), but in the conclusion of the manuscript they indicate that correlation of refractive error was better with CRC and axial length (AL). We believe it would be of interest that the authors clarify whether the variable LT instead of AL should have been included in the conclusion. Jaime Tejedor and Pedro de la Villa Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, Spain References 1. Zhou X, Shen M, Xie J, et al. The development of the refractive status and ocular growth in C57BL/6 mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:5208–5214. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fan Lu
Send letter to journal:
dscl{at}wz.zj.cn Fan Lu
|
In this letter, we respond to the letter from Drs. Jaime Tejedor and Pedro de la Villa and thank them for their thoughtful comments. For the first point, regarding the causes of discrepancy between our finding and their measurements, we agree that the difference in ages of the mice, the measurement procedure, and the conditions are the factors that may have caused the discrepancy. As we pointed out in our article,1 the environment of the growing mouse may also be factor. We also agree with Drs. Tejedor and de la Villa on the second point. The change of refractive error was correlated with the lens thickness (LT) and corneal radius of curvature (CRC). In the Discussion, we stated, "The growth in AL [axial length] correlated most strongly with the changes in LT, followed by ACD [anterior chamber depth]. Thus, changes in these two dimensions contribute most to the increases in AL." Based on this, we concluded that "the refractive error in C57BL/6 mouse eyes increased rapidly in the hyperopic direction, to reach a peak around 47 days, with the major contributing changes being in AL and CRC." Thus, the change of the "AL" mentioned in the conclusion should be interpreted as the change of LT and ACD. While the wording in the conclusion was satisfactory to the reviewers and journal editor, we should have explained this point in more detail in the paper. We thank Dr. Tejedor and Dr. de la Villa for raising these issues. We hope this exchange will clarify these points. Xiangtian Zhou1,2,3 1School of Optometry and Ophthalmology and Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China Reference 1. Zhou X, Shen M, Xie J, et al. The development of the refractive status and ocular growth in C57BL/6 mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:5208-5214. |
|||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
eLetters: