Rods and cones have long been thought to be the exclusive photoreceptors in the retina. This hypothesis is now known to be untrue. An opsin-like protein called melanopsin, originally identified in
Xenopus skin melanophores
1, is present in a small subset of mammalian retinal ganglion cells (RGCs)
1–6, and these cells are intrinsically photosensitive
6,7. The axons of these RGCs project predominantly to the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), the intergeniculate leaflet (IGL) and the olivary pretectal nucleus (OPN) of the brain
6, which are key centres for circadian photo-entrainment and the pupillary light reflex. In melanopsin knockout mice (
Opn4−/−, formerly referred to as
mop−/−; see ref.
8), those RGCs that would normally express melanopsin lose their intrinsic photosensitivity
8.
Opn4−/− mice also have an incomplete pupillary light reflex at high illuminations
8. In independently produced melanopsin-knockout mice, others have found that the ability of light to phase-delay and lengthen the period of the circadian rhythm is also diminished
9,10. For the pupil reflex, this photic response can be quantitatively accounted for by a functional complementarity between the rod–cone system and the melanopsin system, without the need to invoke any additional light-detection system
8. Nonetheless, the proposal has persisted that cryptochromes—flavoproteins reported to have a direct light-detecting role in
Drosophila12,13—may have the same function in mammals
14–16 despite earlier evidence to the contrary
17. To settle this question, we first examined the action spectrum for phase-shifting the circadian rhythm in mice lacking rod and cone photoreceptors (
rd/rd cl)
18. Next, we generated triple-knockout mice lacking all confirmed photodetection systems—
Opn4−/− Gnat1−/− Cnga3−/− (melanopsin (also known as opsin 4), guanine nucleotide-binding protein α-transducin 1 (also known as rod transducin α-subunit, or Trα) and cyclic GMP-gated channel A-subunit 3, respectively)—and tested these animals for pupil reflex, circadian photo-entrainment and the masking response to light.
Irradiance–response relations for the light-induced phase shifting of the circadian rhythm of locomotor behaviour in
rd/rd cl mice were measured at various wavelengths (). The irradiance for half-maximal phase shift at each wavelength was then plotted to give the action spectrum (). This spectrum is best fitted by the predicted absorption spectrum of a vitamin A
1-based photopigment with a wavelength of maximum absorbance (λ
max) ≈ 481 nm, similar to that for the pupil reflex in this genotype (λ
max ≈ 479 nm)
11 and, more specifically, that for the intrinsically photosensitive, melanopsin-expressing RGCs in the rat (λ
max ≈ 484 nm)
7. Thus in the absence of rods and cones, circadian photo-entrainment is apparently determined by the melanopsin system. Previously, an action spectrum with a λ
max of 480 nm has been reported for circadian phase shifting by light in one strain of
rd mice that has lost rods and perhaps most cones
31. However, in part because the same experiments on a different strain of
rd mice gave a λ
max between 500 nm and 515 nm (ref.
32) and interpreted to reflect the action spectrum of mouse middle-wavelength-sensitive (M)-cones, the significance of the first study was never settled. With the
rd/
rd cl mouse line described here in which the loss of rods and cones is essentially complete, however, the signal from residual cones is no longer an issue.
To obtain more conclusive evidence that no other independent photoreceptive systems exist for the various accessory visual functions, we generated triple-knockout mice in which the rod–cone system and the melanopsin system were both silenced. Notably, the silencing of rod–cone functions in this case was achieved not by inducing degeneration of these cells (as occurs in
rd/rd cl mice) but by combining targeted deletions of the genes for rod
Gnat1 (ref.
19) and cone
Cnga3 (refs
20, 21). Gnat1 and Cnga3 are critically involved in the G-protein-coupled cGMP signalling pathway that mediates rod–cone phototransductions. Therefore, in triple-knockout mice, the melanopsin system and the rod–cone system are both unable to signal light. We investigated whether these animals still had any residual response to light, as assayed by their pupil reflex and locomotor behaviour.
The
Opn4−/− Gnat1−/− Cnga3−/− mice were generated by first producing triple heterozygotes (
Opn4+/− Gnat1+/− Cnga3+/−) and then mating these to homozygosity. These mice had a normal-looking retina (). Because
Opn4−/− was produced by replacing the melanopsin gene with the tau-LacZ construct
6,8, the RGCs that would normally express melanopsin could be visualized by 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-β-
d-galactoside (X-gal) labelling. In the triple-knockout mice, these cells were still present () in numbers (about 600 per retina) comparable to wild type
6,8, and their axons still projected predominantly to the SCN, IGL and OPN of the brain (). Thus, the absence of melanopsin and of functional rod–cone phototransductions does not affect the genesis, survival and central connectivity of the melanopsin-associated RGCs.
When tested for the pupillary light reflex with steady, intense exposure of light at 480 nm, the triple-heterozygous mice gave a response resembling wild type in amplitude and time course (). The double-knockout mice (
Gnat1−/− Cnga3−/−) showed the same response (), similar to what we found previously
11 for
rd/rd cl mice, which have complete degeneration of rods and cones. Triple knockouts, however, hardly gave any response to the 480-nm stimulus (), nor to monochromatic light at other wavelengths (360–660 nm) or intense white light (data not shown). The same general results were obtained when these animals were tested at various times over a 24-h period. On close inspection, there was a very transient, barely detectable pupil response (with a mean of 5% reduction in pupil area at peak response) in two out of six tested triple-knockout mice under exposure to bright 480-nm light. However, even in animals where this residual response was detected, it was not consistently present on repeated stimulus trials with extensive dark adaptation (up to 3 days) in between (see legend). The response was unlikely to be caused by heat associated with the illumination, because it largely disappeared after replacement of the 480-nm interference filter with a band-pass filter transmitting only infrared light (≥850 nm) (). A possible source of the signal is the early receptor potential of rods and cones, which consists of a very small, transient membrane hyperpolarization caused by charge movements associated with conformational changes of the visual pigments after photo-isomerization
22,23. This hyperpolarization should persist regardless of whether the transduction steps downstream of the pigment are disabled or not. Another possibility is a very small, transient hyperpolarization generated by intense light in rods and cones via a pathway apparently independent of transducin
24. In any case, the smallness of the residual pupil response, its transient nature even in steady, intense light, and the inconsistency of its occurrence all suggest that it is unlikely to be of physiological significance. Finally, the failure of the
Opn4−/− Gnat1−/− Cnga3−/− pupil to constrict was not due to a defect in the constriction mechanism because carbachol, a parasympathetic agonist, was able to activate maximum pupil constriction when applied to the cornea ().
To assess photo-entrainment,
Opn4+/− Gnat1+/− Cnga3+/− and
Opn4−/− Gnat1−/− Cnga3−/− animals separate from those used in the pupil-reflex studies were kept in an 16/8-h light/dark cycle (800 lx white light in the light period), and their locomotor activity was monitored (see Methods). The triple-heterozygous mice showed normal photo-entrainment, whereas the triple-knockout mice did not show any entrainment (; see also
Supplementary Information). Actograms indicated that the triple-heterozygous mice had an average period length of 24.0 ± 0 h (mean ± s.e.m.,
n = 6; individually all 24.0 h), as expected from stable photo-entrainment. In contrast, the triple homozygous mice had a period length of 23.3 ± 0.2 h (
n = 5; individually 23.8, 23.3, 23.2, 22.5 and 23.5 h), similar to the 23.6 h reported for the same strain (B6/129) of wild-type mice in constant darkness
25, indicating that these animals free-ran even under light/dark conditions. Of note, at the light intensity used in these experiments, the pupils of wild-type or triple-heterozygous mice would have constricted considerably (see ), whereas those of the triple-knockout mice would have stayed unchanged. Thus, the equivalent light intensity at which the triple-knockout mice failed to show photo-entrainment was actually much higher than that capable of entraining wild-type or triple-heterozygous mice.
We have also examined another accessory visual function, namely the masking of locomotion of nocturnal rodents by light, which involves a fast and direct effect of light independent of the circadian pacemaker
26–28. To examine masking by light, the mice tested for photo-entrainment were subsequently placed on a 3.5/3.5-h light/dark cycle (800 lx white light as before, although the equivalent intensity for the triple-knockout mice would again be considerably higher than for the triple-heterozygous mice when the lack of pupil reflex in the triple-knockout animals is taken into account). This ultradian cycle is useful for assessing masking because it is difficult to entrain circadian rhythms to cycles with periods of 7 h or multiples thereof. In this way, it was ensured that masking could be measured at different phases of the endogenous clock
29. When kept in this cycle, the triple-heterozygous mice showed two effects. Four of the six tested animals were negatively masked (that is, their locomotor activity was diminished) by light (). The average percentage of activity in the dark period for these ‘light avoiders’ was 87.1 ± 8.8% (mean ± s.e.m.; individually 99.5%, 66.3%, 85.0% and 97.7%), similar to what was seen with B6/129 wild-type mice (
n = 12; N.M. and S.H., unpublished data). The remaining two animals, paradoxically, developed more wheel-running activity in the light period (), possibly due to the presence of the 129-strain background associated with the triple-heterozygous genotype (this activity reversal has previously been observed in other mouse lines with the 129-strain background; R.J.L., unpublished data). Although the reason for this reversal of activity with respect to the light/dark cycle is unclear, undoubtedly light still had an effect (in this case, positive masking). The percentage of activity in the dark period for these two ‘light preferers’ was 32.7% () and 26.0%, respectively. The triple-knockout mice, on the other hand, were hardly affected by this ultradian light/dark cycle (). The average percentage of activity in the dark period was 43.2 ± 3.4% (mean ± s.e.m.,
n = 4; individually 44.7%, 50.5%, 40.8% and 36.6%), much closer to that expected from randomness (50%).
Given the fact that RGCs normally expressing melanopsin still project to the appropriate brain targets in triple-knockout mice, the conclusion from our experiments is that the rod–cone system and the melanopsin system are the exclusive light-detecting systems in the eye for producing the normal pupillary light reflex, photo-entrainment and masking response to light. These experiments go beyond our previous conclusion that the rod–cone and melanopsin systems are fully complementary to each other in the pupil reflex
8, by demonstrating an essentially complete loss of this and other functions when the two systems are absent or disabled. It was recently reported
16 that the pupil reflex of mice lacking rods as well as Cry1 and Cry2 (
rd/rd Cry1−/− Cry2−/−) is 100-fold less photosensitive than normal (and 10-fold less sensitive than mice only lacking rods;
rd/rd), proposed to support the idea that the cryptochromes may participate as a photodetective system. Nonetheless, other interpretations of these earlier data are possible. Furthermore, the pupil reflex of mice only lacking Cry1 and Cry2 is normal (as is their masking response to light
30). A potential complicating factor in interpreting the results from mice lacking Cry1 and Cry2 is that these animals are reported to show frequent ocular inflammation
15, which may cause subtle changes in retinal function. In any case, we know from immunocytochemistry of our
Opn4−/− Gnat1−/− Cnga3−/− mice that at least Cry2 is still widely expressed in the inner retina (including the RGCs expressing melanopsin), comparable to wild type (data not shown)—the antibodies for Cry1 did not give informative labelling; see Methods. At the same time, real-time polymerase chain reaction with reverse transcription (RT–PCR) indicated that the message levels for Cry1 and Cry2 in
Opn4−/− Gnat1−/− Cnga3−/− eyes are comparable to those in wild-type mice (
Supplementary Information). Thus, the disappearance of the accessory visual functions in the triple-knockout mice cannot be attributed to secondary loss of cryptochromes. Even if mammalian cryptochromes should turn out to function as direct light detectors, either they obligatorily depend on the presence of melanopsin for their light-detecting function or they do not signal light at least for the diverse photic responses studied here.