Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

NEURO-OPHTHALMOLOGY AND NEURO-OTOLOGY: Edited by François-Xavier Borruat and Michael Strupp

Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells

classification, function and clinical implications

Münch, Mirjama; Kawasaki, Akib,c

Author Information
Current Opinion in Neurology: February 2013 - Volume 26 - Issue 1 - p 45-51
doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32835c5e78
  • Free

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

A small percentage of mammalian retinal ganglion cells express the photopigment melanopsin and are capable of driving phototransduction independently of rods and cones [1–5]. Collectively termed intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs), these specialized cells integrate their intrinsic melanopsin-mediated photoresponses with extrinsic signals derived from rods and cones to mediate all light-dependent, nonimage-forming behaviours in mammals [6,7]. Preliminary evidence suggests that they also have a role in visual perception [8,9,10▪▪]. The decade since their identification in 2002 as an independent photoreceptor has witnessed an explosion of investigative studies in related fields of molecular biology, cellular anatomy, chronobiology, neurobiology and visual science, to name a few. It is beyond the scope of this work to discuss details of the intrinsic phototransduction cascade, photopigment regeneration, retinal circuitry and electrophysiology of intrinsic photoresponses, but more information can be found in several excellent articles and reviews [11–15,16▪▪]. Herein, we recapitulate current concepts related to the morphology, central connections and behavioural functions of ipRGCs and highlight recent studies related to the clinical implications of ipRGCs.

SUBTYPES OF INTRINSICALLY PHOTOSENSITIVE RETINAL GANGLION CELLS: M1 CELLS AND NON-M1 CELLS

In primates, including humans, ipRGCs comprise only 0.2% of total retinal ganglion cells, which is about 3000 ipRGCs per eye [8]. Within this small number is a surprising diversity of subtypes, which can be distinguished morphologically and physiologically. At this time, ipRGCs are classified into five subtypes [16▪▪,17]. The M1 cells, being the largest and most numerous subtype, correspond to the early descriptions of ipRGCs when they were still considered to be a uniform cell type [1–3]. M1 cells are rather large neurons having sparsely branched, long dendritic projections that stratify and interconnect in the outermost sublamina of the inner plexiform layer (IPL). M2 cells have larger soma and more complex dendritic arbours, which stratify in the innermost sublamina of the IPL [18–20]. The monostratified M1 and M2 cells constitute the majority of ipRGCs (up to 74–90%) [18,21]. The distinguishing morphologic feature of M3 cells is bistratification of their dendritic processes into both inner and outer sublamina of the IPL [21,22].

Box 1
Box 1:
no caption available

The most recently identified subtypes, M4 and M5, are rare cells that do not immunostain for melanopsin. They do, however, express marker proteins and can depolarize in the absence of any synaptic input [9]. Morphologically, M4 cells have the largest soma of all ipRGCs and M5 cells have a wide, compact, highly branched dendritic arbour termed ‘bushy’, which stratifies into the outermost IPL layer [9].

CENTRAL PROJECTIONS OF INTRINSICALLY PHOTOSENSITIVE RETINAL GANGLION CELLS

In mice and primates, ipRGCs project monosynaptically to deep brain centres. One main target site is the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) in the hypothalamus [2–4,23], which serves as the master circadian pacemaker. The retinal input to the SCN derives predominantly from the M1 subtype of ipRGCs [6,7,20]. The retinohypothalamic tract also projects to other brain regions related to circadian modulation, including the intergeniculate leaflet, the supraoptic nucleus, the ventral subparaventricular zone of the hypothalamus, the ventrolateral preoptic area and the lateral habenula [24–27].

M1 cells also project to the shell of the olivary pretectal nuclei (OPN) [17,20]. The outer shell corresponds to the location of OPN neurons that innervate the Edinger–Westphal nucleus, and thus would implicate M1 ipRGCs as the major and perhaps sole source of retinal light signalling for the pupil light reflex (PLR) [9]. Recently, Chen et al. [28▪▪] demonstrated that M1 projections are linked to their expression of transcriptional factor Brn3b. Only Brn3b-positive M1 cells innervate the OPN outer shell; Brn3b-negative cells selectively innervate the SCN. Thus, despite its morphologic sameness, the M1 subtype is composed of two functionally distinctive subpopulations.

Non-M1 ipRGCs primarily innervate the core of the OPN, the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus and the superior colliculus [17]. These structures receive few, if any, fibres from M1 ipRGCs and are not directly involved in circadian regulation or pupillary responses to light.

MELANOPSIN AND THE INTRINSIC PHOTORESPONSE

Melanopsin photopigment is found in the soma, the dendrites and the proximal portion of the axon of ipRGCs. Their extensive dendritic arbours thus serve as important sites of intrinsic phototransduction. Interestingly, the expression of melanopsin in the retinas of rats show a diurnal modulation, with highest levels occurring near the end of the light period and lowest towards the end of the dark period [29]. The relative sensitivity curve of mammalian melanopsin partly overlaps those of rods and cones and demonstrates a maximal sensitivity around 480 nm (blue light) [15].

Melanopsin-mediated depolarization of ipRGCs exhibits a sluggish photoresponse that is rather slow to reach peak firing rate [2,8,13]. Repolarization after light offset is also slow and cell spiking persists for some time after the light has been turned off. This slow response kinetic may be better suited to integrate information of ambient light levels over longer time periods [30]. Another characteristic of the intrinsic response is its relative insensitivity to photic stimulation. This is explained by the sparse membrane density of melanopsin, which is about 104-fold lower than rod and cone pigments [30]. Thus, ipRGCs alone are rather inefficient at absorbing light, and activation of their intrinsic photoresponse requires much higher irradiance than that needed for activating rods and cones.

The quantity of melanopsin expressed and the quality of the intrinsic photoresponse do vary among the ipRGC subtypes. M1 cells contain the highest quantities of melanopsin and have the largest, most sensitive intrinsic photoresponses [21,22]. The M2 and M3 subtypes have intermediate levels of melanopsin with significantly smaller intrinsic photoresponses than the M1 cells. Finally, M4 and M5 subtypes contain the lowest levels of melanopsin and produce weak, low-amplitude intrinsic photoresponses [9]. Accordingly, M1 cells are driven mostly by their own intrinsic, melanopsin-mediated response to light, whereas the non-M1 cells are strongly influenced by synaptic (extrinsic) input from rods and, in particular, cones [17,22]. There is strong evidence that in all ipRGC subtypes, melanopsin regeneration occurs intracellularly on the basis of a bistable mechanism using longer wavelengths of light [31,32].

Although ipRGCs are capable of depolarizing directly to light stimulation, their activity is under constant influence of rods and cones via synaptic connections with bipolar cells. These extrinsic inputs allow ipRGCs to respond to light with shorter response times, larger depolarization and greater sensitivity to light than is possible from intrinsic melanopsin-mediated response alone. In this way, ipRGCs expand their ability to encode a very broad range of different light stimuli.

PUPIL LIGHT REFLEX: INTEGRATION OF ROD, CONE AND MELANOPSIN SIGNALS

In genetically modified mice, neither the absence of conventional phototransduction (rods and cones) nor of intrinsic phototransduction (melanopsin) alone will abolish the PLR [5,33]. In other words, rods, cones and melanopsin all contribute, via the ipRGCs, to the afferent pupillomotor signal relayed to the OPN [8,34,35]. However, at any given moment, the proportionate contribution of each photoreceptor system is dependent on the light condition. Broadly stated, the highly sensitive rod system dominates the PLR under conditions of dark adaptation. Cone intrusion occurs quickly with increasing stimulus light intensity and with light adaptation. Abrupt changes in illumination activate cones (and rods) whose rapid signalling of light onset and offset defines the recognizable PLR having a fast, transient pupillary constriction followed by a prompt redilation to baseline [6,35,36]. Melanopsin contribution leads to a more sustained modulation of steady-state pupil size [34,37,38]. Knockout models in mice have shown the influence of each photoreceptor in isolation on the PLR [5,33,39], but photoreceptor isolation in the healthy human individual is, at best, difficult due to the complex and nonlinear relationship between extrinsic (rods, cones) and intrinsic (melanopsin) inputs to the ipRGCs.

That said, there is nonetheless a renewed interest in the PLR as a means to assess retinal function noninvasively. By using different narrow-bandwidth (coloured) light stimuli presented under dark and light adaptation, the PLR can be weighted to favour rod, cone or melanopsin activation in humans [34,35,40,41]. In patients with retinitis pigmentosa, their rod-weighted and cone-weighted pupil responses are reduced compared with normal controls [42▪,43▪,44]. In advanced stages of disease, the PLR is more sensitive than standard electroretinography for detecting residual levels of photoreceptor activity [45,46]. Interestingly, the melanopsin-mediated pupil response is preserved in some patients with retinitis pigmentosa, whereas in others it is abnormally low [42▪,44,46]. The reasons for this differential response of inner retinal function are not yet elucidated. In some patients completely blind from end-stage outer retinal degeneration, a slow PLR can still be clinically observed. This pupil response is derived mainly from inner retinal (melanopsin-mediated) phototransduction [40] and explains why patients blind from rod and cone degeneration can retain a circadian rhythm [47,48].

In mammals including primates and humans, blue light of high irradiance (>13 log quanta/cm2/s retinal irradiance) can strongly activate melanopsin-dependent projections [35]. The resulting PLR shows a longer latency and time to peak response than a PLR to an equiluminant red light, which is largely cone-driven [8,33,49]. Following termination of the blue, but not red, light stimulus, the pupil stays constricted. This prolongation of pupil constriction, termed the postillumination pupil response (PIPR), is mediated by melanopsin and corresponds to the previously described slow response kinetics of the intrinsic photoresponse [35,50].

It is not known whether the PIPR is driven exclusively by melanopsin and a standardized parameter to measure PIPR has not yet been established. Recent studies [43▪,50,51,52▪] have used different outcome parameters to measure PIPR, including mean poststimulus pupil size, area under the poststimulus pupil response curve, pupil size at 6 s after light offset, among others. The PIPR has a modulation across 24 h that is not observed in primarily cone-driven pupil responses [52▪,53▪]. In healthy humans, PIPR increases with age. This may be, in part, a compensatory response of ipRGCs to the relative loss of blue light transmission through an ageing lens [54].

PIPR is particularly appealing to clinicians as a behavioural measure of largely the melanopsin system and ipRGC activity because the pupil is a readily accessible marker that can be objectively measured using noninvasive techniques. In patients with glaucoma, PIPR has been found to be reduced at moderate and advanced stages of disease [55▪,56]. This would suggest that the neuronal death in glaucoma is nonselective and involves both conventional ganglion cells and ipRGCs. Reduction of ipRGC function, as assessed by PIPR, has also been reported in patients with diabetes, even in the absence of visible retinopathy [57].

THE INTRINSICALLY PHOTOSENSITIVE RETINAL GANGLION CELLS ARE THE CIRCADIAN PHOTORECEPTORS

Circadian photoentrainment regulates daily synchronization of the internal biological clock with the environmental 24-h light/dark cycle. As the mammalian biological master clock in the SCN receives a majority of its input from ipRGCs via the retinohypothalamic tract, circadian photo entrainment can still be operational in the absence of rods and cones [58]. Conversely, genetically induced melanopsin deficiency in mice results in normal circadian photoentrainment to 12 h : 12 h light–dark cycles, but attenuated circadian phase shifts in response to a short blue light [59]. Melanopsin also mediates the acute sleep-inducing effects of light [60] and impacts sleep homeostasis in mice [61]. An important physiological marker for the circadian phase is plasma or saliva concentrations of the pineal gland hormone, melatonin. Its nocturnal secretion can be suppressed by light [62]. The magnitude and direction of induced circadian phase shifts are dependent on the spectral composition of light, exposure duration, intensity and time of day [63].

Similar to circadian effects, nonimage-forming acute light responses are also mediated by ipRGCs. Those responses occur immediately and have short duration. Due to the blue-shifted sensitivity of ipRGCs, stronger responses to monochromatic blue than to green light (or red light) exposures were shown on acute melatonin suppression [64–68], alertness, core body temperature, heart rate, sleep architecture and electronencephalogram spectra, PLR, clock gene expression, cognitive performance, brain activity and emotional processing [35,67,69–75].

The substantial involvement of ipRGCs in acute and circadian light responses raises the question whether these cells or their projections, when damaged, contribute to human diseases and circadian misalignment. It has been observed that many blind patients suffer chronic sleep disturbances and insomnia [76,77]. This can be explained by the fact that certain optic neuropathies cause diffuse ganglion cell death, ipRGCs included, and thus disrupt both visual function and circadian rhythm. One such optic neuropathy is glaucoma. In an animal model for glaucoma, the circadian readjustment of activity rhythms to a shifted light–dark cycle takes significantly longer than in normal animals [78]. Humans with glaucoma show attenuation of the PIPR to blue light (see above) [55▪,56] and respond with less melatonin suppression to nocturnal bright light exposure [79]. In contrast, some optic neuropathies cause selective ganglion cell death. For example, Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy preferentially spares ipRGCs despite severe loss of conventional ganglion cells, thus explaining why circadian function is not impaired in these patients with optic neuropathy and severe visual disability [80]. In addition, these patients can have a normal PLR [81] and show equal nocturnal melatonin suppression in response to bright light exposure, when compared with healthy controls [80].

Scheduled bright light therapy (up to 10 000 lx) can be therapeutically used to alleviate symptoms in many psychiatric and medical disorders [82▪]. A well known target group for light therapy are patients with seasonal affective disorders (SADs). These patients suffer from depressive symptoms, which typically manifest during the fall and winter season. SAD patients also show an abnormal response to light in the posterior hypothalamus [83], an altered electroretinogram [84] and a genetic missense variant in the melanopsin gene [85], suggesting that their ability to perceive light via ipRGC is altered. The therapy of choice for these patients is scheduled bright light therapy. Short-term bright light therapy, alone or in combination with medical treatment, is beneficial in many other psychiatric disorders, for example ante-partum depression [82▪], and for patients with dementia [86,87]. Recent results suggest that due to blue light sensitivity of ipRGCs and the potential involvement of melanopsin in mood regulation, low-intensity, blue-enriched light might be as effective in decreasing depressive symptoms as standard bright light treatment [88,89].

INTRINSICALLY PHOTOSENSITIVE RETINAL GANGLION CELLS AND PHOTOPHOBIA

The clinical observation that certain blind migraineurs can still experience light-induced exacerbation of headache [90] has long suggested that an alternative (nonrod, noncone) light-sensitive pathway is linked to the trigeminal pain system [91,92]. In mice with different types of photoreceptor dysfunction, light avoidance is not related to rod and cone function but rather to an intact melanopsin pathway [93]. Conversely, mice whose melanopsin has been ablated do not demonstrate light avoidance and humans with bilateral enucleation do not experience photophobia [90], giving indirect evidence that ipRGCs are implicated and that the light signals mediating photophobia and other light-adverse reactions are carried via the optic nerve. Noseda et al.[90] traced ipRGC axons to retinal axons to the dorsocaudal region of the posterior thalamus, and using extracellular single-unit recording, they showed that neurons in this nuclear group were dura-sensitive and also photosensitive [90]. Thus, one mechanism for how light exacerbates migraine headache is convergence of light signals and nociceptive signals at the posterior thalamus, with resulting enhancement of the output signals to the somatosensory cortical areas that register pain. This and other studies continue to shed light on how ordinary light can initiate a variety of adverse and avoidance responses and may lead to more efficient means of treating photophobia.

DO INTRINSICALLY PHOTOSENSITIVE RETINAL GANGLION CELLS HAVE A ROLE IN VISUAL PERCEPTION?

In persons blind from retinal degeneration involving rods and cones, a vague awareness of images, motion or light perception is sometimes retained [47]. Growing awareness of the extent of ipRGC projections to central nuclei that mediate spatial and discriminative visual functions [8,9,94] suggests that this phenomenon may have its origin in the melanopsin system. Ecker et al.[9] found that in the absence of functional rods and cones, mice were still able to discriminate high-contrast gratings well enough to navigate a water maze, indicating that ipRGCs can support rudimentary image formation on the basis of pattern and spatial discrimination. In the most recent study to address this topic, Brown et al.[10▪▪] found that a melanopsin-based perception of brightness discrimination is active in mice with intact rods and cones as well as in normally sighted humans. Whether melanopsin also contributes to spatial information or any other aspect of subjective visual perception in humans is an exciting question whose answer may lead to new prospects for restoring vision in patients who lose vision from rod and cone disease.

CONCLUSION

The identification of ipRGCs has broadened and even changed traditional notions of how the eye processes and signals light information for both visual and nonvisual functions. Clinical implications of the melanopsin system are widespread, particularly as related to chronobiology.

Acknowledgements

Dr Münch is supported by the Velux Foundation (Switzerland).

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING

Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • ▪ of special interest
  • ▪▪ of outstanding interest

Additional references related to this topic can also be found in the Current World Literature section in this issue (p. 105).

REFERENCES

1. Provencio I, Rollag MD, Castrucci AM. Photoreceptive net in the mammalian retina. Nature 2002; 415:493.
2. Berson DM, Dunn FA, Takao M. Phototransduction by retinal ganglion cells that set the circadian clock. Science 2002; 295:1070–1073.
3. Hattar S, Liao HW, Takao M, et al. Melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity. Science 2002; 295:1065–1070.
4. Ruby NF, Brennan TJ, Xie X, et al. Role of melanopsin in circadian responses to light. Science 2002; 298:2211–2213.
5. Lucas RJ, Douglas RH, Foster RG. Characterization of an ocular photopigment capable of driving pupillary constriction in mice. Nat Neurosci 2001; 4:621–626.
6. Guler AD, Ecker JL, Lall GS, et al. Melanopsin cells are the principal conduits for rod-cone input to nonimage-forming vision. Nature 2008; 453:102–105.
7. Hatori M, Le H, Vollmers C, et al. Inducible ablation of melanopsin-expressing retinal ganglion cells reveals their central role in nonimage forming visual responses. PLoS One 2008; 3:e2451.
8. Dacey DM, Liao HW, Peterson BB, et al. Melanopsin-expressing ganglion cells in primate retina signal colour and irradiance and project to the LGN. Nature 2005; 433:749–754.
9. Ecker JL, Dumitrescu ON, Wong KY, et al. Melanopsin-expressing retinal ganglion-cell photoreceptors: cellular diversity and role in pattern vision. Neuron 2010; 67:49–60.
10▪▪. Brown TM, Tsujimura S, Allen AE, et al. Melanopsin-based brightness discrimination in mice and humans. Curr Biol 2012; 22:1134–1141.

These authors investigated different behavioural and electrophysical experiments to show that melanopsin contributes to brightness discrimination in mice. The psychophysical results from experiments with normally sighted humans give direct evidence that conscious visual discrimination is supported by ipRGC-driven activity.

11. Pickard GE, Sollars PJ. Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol 2012; 162:59–90.
12. Hankins MW, Peirson SN, Foster RG. Melanopsin: an exciting photopigment. Trends Neurosci 2008; 31:27–36.
13. Do MT, Yau KW. Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Physiol Review 2010; 90:1547–1581.
14. Hatori M, Panda S. The emerging roles of melanopsin in behavioral adaptation to light. Trends Mol Med 2010; 16:435–446.
15. Bailes HJ, Lucas RJ. Melanopsin and inner retinal photoreception. Cell Mol Life Sci 2010; 67:99–111.
16▪▪. Sand A, Schmidt TM, Kofuji P. Diverese types of ganglion cell photoreceptors in the mammalian retina. Prog Retin Eye Res 2012; 31:287–302.

This is a very complete and most updated review, including structural diversity of ipRGCs, their involvement in a wide array of physiologic and pathologic processes, the melanopsin phototransduction process and current controversies in the field.

17. Schmidt TM, Chen SK, Hattar S. Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells: many subtypes, diverse functions. Trends Neurosci 2011; 34:572–580.
18. Berson DM, Castrucci AM, Provencio I. Morphology and mosaics of melanopsin-expressing retinal ganglion cell types in mice. J Comp Neurol 2010; 518:2405–2422.
19. Viney TJ, Balint K, Hillier D, et al. Local retinal circuits of melanopsin-containing ganglion cells identified by transsynaptic viral tracing. Curr Biol 2007; 17:981–988.
20. Baver SB, Pickard GE, Sollars PJ, Pickard GE. Two types of melanopsin retinal ganglion cell differentially innervate the hypothalamic suprachiasmatic nucleus and the olivary pretectal nucleus. Eur J Neurosci 2008; 27:1763–1770.
21. Schmidt TM, Kofuji P. Functional and morphological differences among intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. J Neurosci 2009; 29:476–482.
22. Schmidt TM, Kofuji P. Differential cone pathway influence on intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell subtypes. J Neurosci 2010; 30:16262–16271.
23. Gooley JJ, Lu J, Chou TC, et al. Melanopsin in cells of origin of the retinohypothalamic tract. Nat Neurosci 2001; 12:1165.
24. Morin LP, Blanchard JH, Provencio I. Retinal ganglion cell projections to the hamster suprachiasmatic nucleus, intergeniculate leaflet, and visual midbrain: bifurcation and melanopsin immunoreactivity. J Comp Neurol 2003; 465:401–416.
25. Gooley JJ, Lu J, Fischer D, Saper CB. A broad role for melanopsin in nonvisual photoreception. J Neurosci 2003; 23:7093–7106.
26. Hattar S, Kumar M, Park A, et al. Central projections of melanopsin-expressing retinal ganglion cells in the mouse. J Comp Neurol 2006; 497:326–349.
27. Hannibal J, Fahrenkrug J. Target areas innervated by PACAP-immunoreactive retinal ganglion cells. Cell Tissue Res 2004; 316:99–113.
28▪▪. Chen SK, Badea TC, Hattar S. Photoentrainment and pupillary light reflex are mediated by distinct populations of ipRGCs. Nature 2011; 476:92–95.

This study demonstrated that M1 ipRGC subpopulations exhibit molecular differences such that their projections innervate distinct brain areas to execute specific light-induced functions.

29. Hannibal J, Georg B, Hindersson P, Fahrenkrug J. Light and darkness regulate melanopsin in the retinal ganglion cells of the albino Wistar rat. J Mol Neurosci 2005; 27:147–155.
30. Do MT, Kang SH, Xue T, et al. Photon capture and signalling by melanopsin retinal ganglion cells. Nature 2009; 457:281–287.
31. Mure LS, Cornut PL, Rieux C, et al. Melanopsin bistability: a fly's eye technology in the human retina. PLoS One 2009; 4:e5991.
32. Sexton TJ, Golczak M, Palczewski K, Van Gelder RN. Melanopsin is highly resistant to light and chemical bleaching in vivo. J Biol Chem 2012; 287:20888–20897.
33. Lucas RJ, Hattar S, Takao M, et al. Diminished pupillary light reflex at high irradiances in melanopsin-knockout mice. Science 2003; 299:245–247.
34. McDougal DH, Gamlin P. The influence of intrinsically-photosensitive retinal ganglion cells on the spectral sensitivity and response dynamics of the human pupillary light reflex. Vision Res 2010; 50:72–87.
35. Gamlin P, McDougal DH, Pokorny J, et al. Human and macaque pupil responses driven by melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells. Vision Res 2007; 47:946–954.
36. Lall GS, Revell VL, Momiji H, et al. Distinct contributions of rod, cone, and melanopsin photoreceptors to encoding irradiance. Neuron 2010; 66:417–428.
37. Tsujimura S, Ukai K, Ohama D, et al. Contribution of human melanopsin retinal ganglion cells to steady-state pupil responses. Proc Biol Sci 2010; 277:2485–2492.
38. Mure LS, Rieux C, Hattar S, Cooper HM. Melanopsin-dependent nonvisual responses: evidence for photopigment bistability in vivo. J Biol Rhythms 2007; 22:411–424.
39. Hattar S, Lucas RJ, Mrosovsky N, et al. Melanopsin and rod-cone photoreceptive systems account for all major accessory visual functions in mice. Nature 2003; 424:76–81.
40. Kawasaki A, Kardon RH. Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. J Neuroophthalmol 2007; 27:195–204.
41. Kardon R, Anderson SC, Damarjian TG, et al. Chromatic pupil responses: preferential activation of the melanopsin-mediated versus outer photoreceptor-mediated pupil light reflex. Ophthalmology 2009; 116:1564–1573.
42▪. Kardon R, Anderson SC, Damarjian TG, et al. Chromatic pupillometry in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology 2011; 118:376–381.

This study first showed, as proof of concept, that outer and inner retinal activity can be differentially detected and quantified in the pupil responses to selected light stimuli in patients with outer retinal degeneration.

43▪. Park JC, Moura AL, Raza AS, et al. Toward a clinical protocol for assessing rod, cone, and melanopsin contributions to the human pupil response. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:6624–6635.

This pupillometric study addressed the issue of a more rigorous isolation of photoreceptor types. The authors define a clinical protocol for assessing rod, cone and melanopsin function from pupil responses.

44. Lorenz B, Strohmayr E, Zahn S, et al. Chromatic pupillometry dissects function of the three different light-sensitive retinal cell populations in RPE65 deficiency. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53:5641–5652.
45. Kawasaki A, Munier FL, Léon L, Kardon RH. Pupillometric quantification of residual rod and cone activity in Leber congenital amaurosis. Arch Ophthalmol 2012; 130:798–800.
46. Kawasaki A, Crippa SV, Kardon R, et al. Characterization of pupil responses to blue and red light stimuli in autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa due to NR2E3 mutation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53:5562–5569.
47. Zaidi FH, Hull JT, Peirson SN, et al. Short-wavelength light sensitivity of circadian, pupillary, and visual awareness in humans lacking an outer retina. Curr Biol 2007; 17:2122–2128.
48. Czeisler CA, Shanahan TL, Klerman EB, et al. Suppression of melatonin secretion in some blind patients by exposure to bright light. N Engl J Med 1995; 332:6–11.
49. Tsujimura S, Tokuda Y. Delayed response of human melanopsin retinal ganglion cells on the pupillary light reflex. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011; 31:469–479.
50. Kankipati L, Girkin CA, Gamlin PD. Postillumination pupil response in subjects without ocular disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51:2764–2769.
51. Herbst K, Sander B, Milea D, et al. Test-retest repeatability of the pupil light response to blue and red light stimuli in normal human eyes using a novel pupillometer. Front Neurol 2011; 2:10.
52▪. Münch M, Léon L, Crippa SV, Kawasaki A. Circadian and wake-dependent effects on the pupil light reflex in response to narrow-bandwidth light pulses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53:4546–4555.

In this study, which variable of the human pupil response reflects best was tested, mainly ipRGC-driven responses across 24 h. Sleepiness-induced effects on the pupil light response and associations with circadian melatonin secretion were shown to narrow-bandwidth blue and red light stimuli.

53▪. Zele AJ, Feigl B, Smith SS, Markwell EL. The circadian response of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. PLoS One 2011; 6:e17860.

This study shows, for the first time, a circadian modulation of the ipRGC-mediated PIPR to narrow-bandwidth blue and red light, with least ipRGC sensitivity occurring in the early evening.

54. Herbst K, Sander B, Lund-Andersen H, et al. Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell function in relation to age: pupillometric study in humans with special reference to the age-related optic properties of the lens. BMC Ophthalmol 2012; 12:4.
55▪. Kankipati L, Girkin CA, Gamlin PD. The postillumination pupil response is reduced in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:2287–2292.

In this study, the authors extend their previous investigation of the PIPR to patients with clinically evident optic nerve disease. A diminished PIPR suggests reduction of melanopsin activity, presumably due to loss of ipRGCs in glaucoma.

56. Feigl B, Mattes D, Thomas R, Zele AJ. Intrinsically photosensitive (melanopsin) retinal ganglion cell function in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:4362–4367.
57. Feigl B, Zele AJ, Fader SM, et al. The postillumination pupil response of melanopsin-expressing intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells in diabetes. Acta Ophthalmol 2012; 90:e230–e234.
58. Freedman MS, Lucas RJ, Soni B, et al. Regulation of mammalian circadian behavior by nonrod, noncone, ocular photoreceptors. Science 1999; 284:502–504.
59. Panda S, Sato TK, Castrucci AM, et al. Melanopsin (Opn4) requirement for normal light-induced circadian phase shifting. Science 2002; 298:2213–2216.
60. Lupi D, Oster H, Thompson S, Foster RG. The acute light induction of sleep is mediated by OPN4-based photoreception. Nat Neurosci 2008; 11:1068–1073.
61. Tsai JW, Hannibal J, Hagiwara G, et al. Melanopsin as a sleep modulator: circadian gating of the direct effects of light on sleep and altered sleep homeostasis in Opn4-/-mice. PLoS Biol 2009; 7:e1000125.
62. Lewy AJ, Wehr TA, Goodwin FK, et al. Light suppresses melatonin secretion in humans. Science 1980; 210:1267–1269.
63. Lockley SW. Circadian rhythms: influence of light in humans. In: Larry RS, editor. Encyclopedia of neuroscience, vol. 2. Oxford: Academic Press; 2009. pp. 971–988.
64. Lockley SW, Brainard GC, Czeisler CA. High sensitivity of the human circadian melatonin rhythm to resetting by short wavelength light. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003; 88:4502–4505.
65. Brainard GC, Hanifin JP, Greeson JM, et al. Action spectrum for melatonin regulation in humans: evidence for a novel circadian photoreceptor. J Neurosci 2001; 21:6405–6412.
66. Thapan K, Arendt J, Skene DJ. An action spectrum for melatonin suppression: evidence for a novel nonrod, noncone photoreceptor system in humans. J Physiol 2001; 535:261–267.
67. Cajochen C, Münch M, Kobialka S, et al. High sensitivity of human melatonin, alertness, thermoregulation and heart rate to short wavelength light. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005; 90:1311–1316.
68. Revell V, Skene DJ. Light-induced melatonin suppression in humans with polychromatic and monochromatic light. Chronobiol Int 2007; 24:1125–1137.
69. Vandewalle G, Gais S, Schabus M, et al. Wavelength-dependent modulation of brain responses to a working memory task by daytime light exposure. Cereb Cortex 2007; 17:2788–2795.
70. Lockley SW, Evans EE, Scheer FA, et al. Short-wavelength sensitivity for the direct effects of light on alertness, vigilance, and the waking electroencephalogram in humans. Sleep 2006; 29:161–168.
71. Münch M, Kobialka S, Steiner R, et al. Wavelength-dependent effects of evening light exposure on sleep architecture and sleep EEG power density in men. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2006; 290:R1421–R1428.
72. Revell VL, Arendt J, Fogg LF, Skene DJ. Alerting effects of light are sensitive to very short wavelengths. Neurosci Lett 2006; 399:96–100.
73. Cajochen C, Jud C, Münch M, et al. Evening exposure to blue light stimulates the expression of the clock gene PER2 in humans. Eur J Neurosci 2006; 23:1082–1086.
74. Vandewalle G, Balteau E, Phillips C, et al. Daytime light exposure dynamically enhances brain responses. Curr Biol 2006; 16:1616–1621.
75. Vandewalle G, Schwartz S, Grandjean D, et al. Spectral quality of light modulates emotional brain responses in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107:19549–19554.
76. Lockley SW, Dijk DJ, Kosti O, et al. Alertness, mood and performance rhythm disturbances associated with circadian sleep disorders in the blind. J Sleep Res 2008; 17:207–216.
77. Sack RL, Lewy AJ. Circadian rhythm sleep disorders: lessons from the blind. Sleep Med Rev 2001; 5:189–206.
78. Drouyer E, Dkhissi-Benyahya O, Chiquet C, et al. Glaucoma alters the circadian timing system. PLoS One 2008; 3:e3931.
79. Perez-Rico C, de la Villa P, Arribas-Gomez I, Blanco R. Evaluation of functional integrity of the retinohypothalamic tract in advanced glaucoma using multifocal electroretinography and light-induced melatonin suppression. Exp Eye Res 2010; 91:578–583.
80. La Morgia C, Ross-Cisneros FN, Sadun AA, et al. Melanopsin retinal ganglion cells are resistant to neurodegeneration in mitochondrial optic neuropathies. Brain 2010; 133:2426–2438.
81. Kawasaki A, Herbst K, Sander B, Milea D. Selective wavelength pupillometry in Leber hereditary optic neuropathy. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2010; 38:322–324.
82▪. Wirz-Justice A, Terman M. Chronotherapeutics (light and wake therapy) as a class of interventions for affective disorders. Handb Clin Neurol 2012; 106:697–713.

This updated handbook for clinicians gives a state-of-the-art overview of current concepts related to chronotherapeutic interventions, including light therapeutic possibilities.

83. Vandewalle G, Hebert M, Beaulieu C, et al. Abnormal hypothalamic response to light in seasonal affective disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2011; 70:954–961.
84. Gagne AM, Levesque F, Gagne P, Hebert M. Impact of blue vs red light on retinal response of patients with seasonal affective disorder and healthy controls. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2011; 35:227–231.
85. Roecklein KA, Rohan KJ, Duncan WC, et al. A missense variant (P10L) of the melanopsin (OPN4) gene in seasonal affective disorder. J Affect Disord 2009; 114:279–285.
86. Van Someren EJ, Kessler A, Mirmiran M, Swaab DF. Indirect bright light improves circadian rest-activity rhythm disturbances in demented patients. Biol Psychiatry 1997; 41:955–963.
87. Riemersma-van der Lek RF, Swaab DF, Twisk J, et al. Effect of bright light and melatonin on cognitive and noncognitive function in elderly residents of group care facilities: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008; 299:2642–2655.
88. Meesters Y, Dekker V, Schlangen LJ, et al. Low-intensity blue-enriched white light (750 lux) and standard bright light (10 000 lux) are equally effective in treating SAD. A randomized controlled study. BMC Psychiatry 2011; 11:17.
89. Gordijn M, t Mannetje D, Meesters Y. The effects of blue-enriched light treatment compared to standard light treatment in seasonal affective disorder. J Affect Disord.2012; 136:72–80.
90. Noseda R, Kainz V, Jakubowski M, et al. A neural mechanism for exacerbation of headache by light. Nat Neurosci 2010; 13:239–245.
91. Noseda R, Jakubowski M, Kainz V, et al. Cortical projections of functionally identified thalamic trigeminovascular neurons: implications for migraine headache and its associated symptoms. J Neurosci 2011; 31:14204–14217.
92. Amini A, Digre K, Couldwell WT. Photophobia in a blind patient: an alternate visual pathway. J Neurosurg 2006; 105:765–768.
93. Thompson S, Recober A, Vogel TW, et al. Light aversion in mice depends on nonimage-forming irradiance detection. Behav Neurosci 2010; 124:821–827.
94. Johnson J, Wu V, Donovan M, et al. Melanopsin-dependent light avoidance in neonatal mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107:17374–17378.
Keywords:

circadian rhythm; intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells; melanopsin; pupil; pupil light reflex

© 2013 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.