4.6 Article

Comparison of the clinical expression of retinitis pigmentosa associated with rhodopsin mutations at codon 347 and codon 23

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 136, Issue 2, Pages 306-313

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(03)00206-X

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To examine the difference in expression of retinitis pigmentosa from mutations at codon 23 and codon 347 or rhodopsin; to report a novel mutation in rhodopsin. METHODS: Goldmann perimetry (solid angle of I4e isopter) and electroretinographic amplitudes (square root transform of a response ratio) were analyzed for 24 patients with mutations at codon 347 (15 with Pro347Ala, 2 with Pro347Gln, 6 with Pro347Leu, and I with a novel Pro347Cys change) and 41 patients with mutations at codon 23 (6 with Pro23Ala; 35 with Pro23His). RESULTS: When all patients with mutations at codons 347 and 23 were compared, loss of visual fields was significantly worse in patients with codon 347 changes (P =.0003). Only rod responses of the electroretinograms were significantly different between the two groups (P =.048). Specific comparison of Pro347Ala with Pro23Ala using regression analysis demonstrated significant differences in severity between codon 23 and codon 347 patients for b-wave amplitudes of rod (P =.0069), cone (P =.039) and maximum combined response (P =.049). The solid angle of the I4e isopter was also significantly different (P =.025) between the groups after controlling for age. Modeling age by group for Pro347Ala comparison produced an R-2 of .44. CONCLUSION: We reconfirmed that rhodopsin,related retinitis pigmentosa from mutations involving codon 347 produces a more severe phenotype than that involving codon 23. Accurate modeling of disease was shown to be possible by incorporating the effects of a patient's age and specific genotype. Therefore, both of these variables must be considered in prognostic counseling and subject recruitment for future therapeutic trials.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available