4.6 Article

A Dominant Mutation in Rpe65, D477G, Delays Dark Adaptation and Disturbs the Visual Cycle in the Mutant Knock-In Mice

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 187, 期 3, 页码 517-527

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2016.11.004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [EY012231, EY018659, EY019309, EY016507, GM104934]
  2. Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology [HR-13-076]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

RPE65 is an indispensable component of the retinoid visual cycle in vertebrates, through which the visual chromophore 11-cis-retinal (11-cis-RAL) is generated to maintain normal vision. Various blinding conditions in humans, such as Leber congenital amaurosis and retinitis pigmentosa (RP), are attributed to either homozygous or compound heterozygous mutations in RPE65. Herein, we investigated D477G missense mutation, an unprecedented dominant-acting mutation of RPE65 identified in patients with autosomal dominant RP. We generated a D477G knock-in (la) mouse and characterized its phenotypes. Although RPE65 protein Levels were decreased in heterozygous KI mice, their scotopic, maximal, and photopic electroretinography responses were comparable to those of wild-type (WT) mice in stationary condition. As shown by high-performance Liquid chromatography analysis, levels of 11-cis-RAL in fully dark-adapted heterozygous KI mice were similar to that in WT mice. However, kinetics of 11-cis-RAL regeneration after light exposure were significantly slower in heterozygous KI mice compared with WT and RPE65 heterozygous knockout mice. Furthermore, heterozygous KI mice exhibited lower A-wave recovery compared with WT mice after photobleaching, suggesting a delayed dark adaptation. Taken together, these observations suggest that D477G acts as a dominant-negative mutant of RPE65 that delays chromophore regeneration. The KI mice provide a useful model for further understanding of the pathogenesis of RP associated with this RPE65 mutant and for the development of therapeutic strategies.

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

4.6
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