Letter | Published:

Maintenance of optical quality during crystalline lens growth

Nature volume 301, pages 618620 (17 February 1983) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Vertebrate lenses grow throughout life by the division of cells at the lens surface. The fibre cells thus produced are gradually covered by newer tissue, giving a layered structure. During growth, the lens must remain transparent and retain its refractile properties. The severity of these constraints is perhaps most evident in teleost fish which have a spherical lens that may increase in volume by a thousandfold during the first year of life1. The dioptric power of the teleost fish eye is vested entirely in this spherical lens, as water, the cornea and the intraocular vitreous humour have almost identical refractive indices2. Spherical lenses of uniform refractive index produce poor images because rays entering at different distances from the optic axis are focused at different distances from the lens. Teleost fish do not suffer from this imperfection and it has long been presumed that this is because there exists a refractive index gradient having a high value in the centre and decreasing continuously and symmetrically with radius in all directions3,4. Here we demonstrate in the African cichlid fish, Haplochromis burtoni, that a refractive index gradient does exist, although its form is significantly different from that previously postulated5.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    in Advances in Neuroethology (eds Ewert, J.-P., Capranica, R. R. & Ingle, D.) (Plenum, New York, in the press).

  2. 2.

    & Proc. R. Soc. B128, 317–342 (1938).

  3. 3.

    Camb. Dubl. math. J. 8, 188–195 (1854).

  4. 4.

    Pflügers Arch. ges. Physiol. 21, 287–307 (1880); 27, 510–523 (1882); 38, 521–528 (1886).

  5. 5.

    in The Cell and the Organism (ed. Ramsay, J. A.) 193–208 (Cambridge, London, 1961).

  6. 6.

    , , & J. Cell Biol. 12, 385–410 (1962).

  7. 7.

    De Oculorum Hominis Animaliumque Secone Horizontali Commentatio (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1818).

  8. 8.

    J. comp. Physiol. 121, 135–144 (1977); Zool. Jb. Physiol. 79, 204–212 (1975).

  9. 9.

    Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 311–317 (1816).

  10. 10.

    Bull. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 27, 418–425 (1955); Bull. Inst. Oceanogr., Monaco 1071, 1–10 (1956).

  11. 11.

    Vision Res. 14, 209–213 (1974).

  12. 12.

    Mathematical Theory of Optics, 208–213 (Brown University, Providence, 1944).

  13. 13.

    , & Proc. R. Soc. A223, 216 (1954).

  14. 14.

    , & Expl Eye Res. 33, 615–620 (1981).

  15. 15.

    Invest. Ophthal. 8, 258–270 (1969).

  16. 16.

    & The Proteins, Chemistry, Biological Activity and Methods (eds Neurath, H. & Bailey, K.) 393–460 (Academic, New York, 1953).

  17. 17.

    in The Eye Vol. 5 (eds Davson, H. & Graham, L. T. Jr) 399–494 (Academic, New York, 1974).

  18. 18.

    & Expl Eye Res. 28, 651–663 (1979).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA

    • Russell D. Fernald
    •  & Stephen E. Wright

Authors

  1. Search for Russell D. Fernald in:

  2. Search for Stephen E. Wright in:

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/301618a0

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.