4.5 Article

The effects and interactions of GABAergic and dopaminergic agents in the prevention of form deprivation myopia by brief periods of normal vision

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL EYE RESEARCH
Volume 110, Issue -, Pages 88-95

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2013.02.017

Keywords

GABA; dopamine; form-deprivation myopia; chick

Categories

Funding

  1. NHRMC [553003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intravitreal injections of GABA antagonists, dopamine agonists and brief periods of normal vision have been shown separately to inhibit form-deprivation myopia (FDM). Our study had three aims: (i) establish whether GABAergic agents modify the myopia protective effect of normal vision, (ii) investigate the receptor sub-type specificity of any observed effect, and (iii) consider an interaction with the dopamine (DA) system. Prior to the period of normal vision GABAergic agents were applied either (i) individually, (ii) in combination with other GABAergic agents (an agonist with an antagonist), or (iii) in combination with DA agonists and antagonists. Water injections were given to groups not receiving drug treatments so that all experimental eyes received intravitreal injections. As shown previously, constant form-deprivation resulted in high myopia and when diffusers were removed for 2 h per day the period of normal vision greatly reduced the FDM that developed. GABA agonists inhibited the protective effect of normal vision whereas antagonists had the opposite effect. GABA(A/C) agonists and D-2 DA antagonists when used in combination were additive in suppressing the protective effect of normal vision. A D-2 DA agonist restored some of the protective effect of normal vision that was inhibited by a GABA agonist (muscimol). The protective effect of normal vision against form-deprivation is modifiable by both the GABAergic and DAergic pathways. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available