PubMedDate not supplied
PURPOSE: The results of a recent study on accommodation in humans and baboons has revealed that lens fiber structure and organization are key components of the mechanism of accommodation. Dynamic focusing involves the controlled displacement and replacement, or realignment, of cortical fiber-ends at sutures as the mechanism of accommodation at the fiber level. This emended explanation of the mechanism of accommodation raises the following question: as the structure of crystalline lenses are only similar, not identical between species, is accommodative amplitude related to differences in the structure and organization of fibers between species? To address this question, we have quantitatively examined the structure and organization of fibers in a number of the more commonly used animal models (mice, cattle, frogs, rabbits and chickens) for lens research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lenses (a minimum of 12-18 lenses/species) from mice, cattle, frogs and rabbits were used for this study. Prior to fixation for structural analysis, measurements of the gross shape of the lenses (equatorial diameter, anterior and posterior minor radii [anterior + posterior minor radius = polar axis]) were taken directly through a stereo surgical dissecting microscope equipped with an ocular reticle. Lenses were then prepared for and examined by light (LM), transmission (TEM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Scale computer-assisted drawings (CADs) of lenses and lens fibers were then constructed from quantitative data as described above and from quantitative data contained in micrographs. RESULTS: The differences in fiber structure and organization that effect accommodative range arise early in development and are continued throughout lifelong lens growth. In umbilical suture lenses (avian) secondary fibers develop with almost completely tapered anterior ends (85-90% reduction of their measures of width and thickness at the equator). By comparison, in lenses with line sutures (e.g. frogs and rabbits) secondary fibers develop with just a 50-60% reduction in anterior fiber taper. In lenses with Y sutures (mice and cattle), fiber width taper is only 25-40%. However, in all cases, while the taper of the posterior end width of fibers is just slightly less (approx. 15-20%) than that of anterior ends, posterior end thickness is only reduced by one half that of anterior thickness. CONCLUSIONS: In humans, the mechanism of accommodation at the fiber level involves the controlled realignment of very flattened and flared, rather than tapered fiber-ends at sutures. In this manner, the simultaneous increase in lens thickness and surface curvature in the accommodated state is the result of fiber-ends being overlapped along multiple (9-12) suture branches covering the majority of the anterior and posterior surfaces. The results of this animal study strongly suggest that accommodative range is directly related to quantitative differences in fiber structure and organization in the different suture types. The very broad accommodative range in birds is made possible, at least in part, by the almost complete tapering of fiber-ends at umbilical sutures. In contrast, the essentially negligible accommodative range of animals that have line- and Y-suture lenses is at least partially the result of the fact that these lenses have fibers with very little end taper. Thus, the blunt ends of fibers in line- and Y-suture lenses precludes any significant overlap of end segments to effect accommodation.