Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Oct 31;9(10):e110906.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110906. eCollection 2014.

Intermittent episodes of bright light suppress myopia in the chicken more than continuous bright light

Affiliations

Intermittent episodes of bright light suppress myopia in the chicken more than continuous bright light

Weizhong Lan et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Purpose: Bright light has been shown a powerful inhibitor of myopia development in animal models. We studied which temporal patterns of bright light are the most potent in suppressing deprivation myopia in chickens.

Methods: Eight-day-old chickens wore diffusers over one eye to induce deprivation myopia. A reference group (n = 8) was kept under office-like illuminance (500 lux) at a 10:14 light:dark cycle. Episodes of bright light (15 000 lux) were super-imposed on this background as follows. Paradigm I: exposure to constant bright light for either 1 hour (n = 5), 2 hours (n = 5), 5 hours (n = 4) or 10 hours (n = 4). Paradigm II: exposure to repeated cycles of bright light with 50% duty cycle and either 60 minutes (n = 7), 30 minutes (n = 8), 15 minutes (n = 6), 7 minutes (n = 7) or 1 minute (n = 7) periods, provided for 10 hours. Refraction and axial length were measured prior to and immediately after the 5-day experiment. Relative changes were analyzed by paired t-tests, and differences among groups were tested by one-way ANOVA.

Results: Compared with the reference group, exposure to continuous bright light for 1 or 2 hours every day had no significant protective effect against deprivation myopia. Inhibition of myopia became significant after 5 hours of bright light exposure but extending the duration to 10 hours did not offer an additional benefit. In comparison, repeated cycles of 1:1 or 7:7 minutes of bright light enhanced the protective effect against myopia and could fully suppress its development.

Conclusions: The protective effect of bright light depends on the exposure duration and, to the intermittent form, the frequency cycle. Compared to the saturation effect of continuous bright light, low frequency cycles of bright light (1:1 min) provided the strongest inhibition effect. However, our quantitative results probably might not be directly translated into humans, but rather need further amendments in clinical studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Myopia induced by diffusers over one eye when chickens were kept under constant bright light of 15 000 lux for 1, 2, 5, or 10 hours (“15k, time in hours”; filled gray bars) or under cycles of bright light, changing from 500 to 15 000 lux at different frequencies (“15k, half cycle duration; black bars).
Patterned gray bars show the amount of myopia that developed in two batches of chickens wearing monocular diffusers under regular laboratory illumination of 500 lux (“500,10 h”). Because there was no difference between both groups, their data were pooled and provided the reference for the bright light treatment groups. An inhibitory effect of constant bright light was observed only when the exposure lasted for 5 hours or more (P = 0.004 and P = 0.007 for 5 and 10 hours, respectively). No additional benefit was observed when the bright light exposure was extended to 10 hours, compared with those exposed to 5 hours (P = 0.796). When bright light was provided as a temporal square wave function, its protective effect against myopia was enhanced. Chickens kept under 7∶7 or 1∶1 minute cycles developed the least myopia, compared with other cycles (P = 0.033 for differences among groups reared under cycles of bright light; Post-hoc pairwise comparison: 7∶7 minutes vs 30∶30 minutes, P = 0.038; 1∶1 minutes vs 60∶60, 30∶30, 15∶15 minutes: P = 0.041, 0.006, 0.022, respectively). *<0.05, **<0.01.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlation between vitreous chamber depth and the amount of myopia in chickens under different light regimens.
Equations for the linear regression, and R2 values are provided for each light regimen. Long dash line represents the data for intermittent bright light, dotted line for constant bright light and short dash line for standard illuminance, respectively. Note that one diopter of myopia was equivalent to about 0.1 mm of axial elongation across groups (data from one single animal were excluded from the plot because of apparent measurement error, data: −13.9D vs 0.25 mm).
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relative increase in vitreous chamber depth (VCD) in eyes with monocular diffusers (bars grey-scale coded as in Figure 1).
Although there was no significant difference among treatment groups for either paradigm (Paradigm I: F = 1.639, P = 0.204 and Paradigm II: F = 2.075, P = 0.109), the increase of VCD in chickens reared under constant bright light for 5 or 10 hours was signifcantly supressed compared with those under standard illuminance (P = 0.029 and 0.037, respectively). In comparison with constant bright light, this effect was further enhanced in chickens exposed to cycles of bright light at a frequency of 7∶7 or 1∶1 minutes (all P<0.05, except for the comparison between the 7∶7 minute cycle and the 5 h constant bright light exposure, P = 0.180 and a borderline significance between the 7∶7 minute cycle and the 1 h constant bright light exposure, P = 0.075).* <0.05, **<0.01. Abbreviations as in Figure 1.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jobke S, Kasten E, Vorwerk C (2008) The prevalence rates of refractive errors among children, adolescents, and adults in Germany. Clin Ophthalmol 2: 601–607. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wolfram C, Hohn R, Kottler U, Wild P, Blettner M, et al. (2014) Prevalence of refractive errors in the European adult population: the Gutenberg Health Study (GHS). The British journal of ophthalmology 55: 2041–2047. - PubMed
    1. Wu HM, Seet B, Yap EP, Saw SM, Lim TH, et al. (2001) Does education explain ethnic differences in myopia prevalence? A population-based study of young adult males in Singapore. Optometry and vision science 78: 234–239. - PubMed
    1. He M, Zeng J, Liu Y, Xu J, Pokharel GP, et al. (2004) Refractive error and visual impairment in urban children in southern china. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 45: 793–799. - PubMed
    1. Dirani M, Tong L, Gazzard G, Zhang X, Chia A, et al. (2009) Outdoor activity and myopia in Singapore teenage children. The British journal of ophthalmology 93: 997–1000. - PubMed

Publication types