4.5 Article

Human Cone Visual Pigment Deletions Spare Sufficient Photoreceptors to Warrant Gene Therapy

期刊

HUMAN GENE THERAPY
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 993-1006

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/hum.2013.153

关键词

-

资金

  1. BCMfamilies
  2. Macula Vision Research Foundation
  3. NIH [P30EY001931, C06RR016511, R01EY019304, R01EY013203, R01EY017607]
  4. Foundation Fighting Blindness (USA)
  5. Research to Prevent Blindness
  6. Fight for Sight (UK)
  7. UK National Institute for Health Research (Moorfields Eye Hospital BRC)
  8. Moorfields Special Trustees
  9. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10204] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human X-linked blue-cone monochromacy (BCM), a disabling congenital visual disorder of cone photoreceptors, is a candidate disease for gene augmentation therapy. BCM is caused by either mutations in the red (OPN1LW) and green (OPN1MW) cone photoreceptor opsin gene array or large deletions encompassing portions of the gene array and upstream regulatory sequences that would predict a lack of red or green opsin expression. The fate of opsin-deficient cone cells is unknown. We know that rod opsin null mutant mice show rapid postnatal death of rod photoreceptors. Using in vivo histology with high-resolution retinal imaging, we studied a cohort of 20 BCM patients (age range 5-58) with large deletions in the red/green opsin gene array. Already in the first years of life, retinal structure was not normal: there was partial loss of photoreceptors across the central retina. Remaining cone cells had detectable outer segments that were abnormally shortened. Adaptive optics imaging confirmed the existence of inner segments at a spatial density greater than that expected for the residual blue cones. The evidence indicates that human cones in patients with deletions in the red/green opsin gene array can survive in reduced numbers with limited outer segment material, suggesting potential value of gene therapy for BCM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据