Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25909963›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Blue cone monochromacy: visual function and efficacy outcome measures for clinical trials.

Xunda Luo, Artur V Cideciyan, Alessandro Iannaccone, Alejandro J Roman, Lauren C Ditta, Barbara J Jennings, Svetlana A Yatsenko, Rebecca Sheplock, Alexander Sumaroka, Malgorzata Swider and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The landscape of submicroscopic structural variants at theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Xunda LuoScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Artur V CideciyanScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Alessandro IannacconeHamilton Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America.
Alejandro J RomanScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Lauren C DittaHamilton Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America.
Barbara J JenningsHamilton Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America.
Svetlana A YatsenkoPittsburgh Cytogenetics Laboratory, Center for Medical Genetics and Genomics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Rebecca SheplockScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Alexander SumarokaScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Malgorzata SwiderScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Sharon B SchwartzScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Bernd WissingerMolecular Genetics Laboratory, Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Centre for Ophthalmology, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Susanne KohlMolecular Genetics Laboratory, Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Centre for Ophthalmology, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Samuel G JacobsonScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Penn Presbyterian Medical Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center · USSTZ eyetrial · DEUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

Scientific TransparencyP30EY001583 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Qi N Cui · 1985 to 2026
$19.5M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY001583
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlue Cone Monochromacy (BCM) is an X-linked retinopathy caused by mutations in the OPN1LW / OPN1MW gene cluster, encoding long (L)- and middle (M)-wavelength sensitive cone opsins. Recent evidence shows sufficient structural integrity of cone photoreceptors in BCM to warrant consideration of a gene therapy approach to the disease. In the present study, the vision in BCM is examined, specifically seeking clinically-feasible outcomes for a future clinical trial.

methodsBCM patients (n = 25, ages 5-72) were studied with kinetic and static chromatic perimetry, full-field sensitivity testing, and eye movement recordings. Vision at the fovea and parafovea was probed with chromatic microperimetry.

resultsKinetic fields with a Goldmann size V target were generally full. Short-wavelength (S-) sensitive cone function was normal or near normal in most patients. Light-adapted perimetry results on conventional background lights were abnormally reduced; 600-nm stimuli were seen by rods whereas white stimuli were seen by both rods and S-cones. Under dark-adapted conditions, 500-nm stimuli were seen by rods in both BCM and normals. Spectral sensitivity functions in the superior retina showed retained rod and S-cone functions in BCM under dark-adapted and light-adapted conditions. In the fovea, normal subjects showed L/M-cone mediation using a 650-nm stimulus under dark-adapted conditions, whereas BCM patients had reduced sensitivity driven by rod vision. Full-field red stimuli on bright blue backgrounds were seen by L/M-cones in normal subjects whereas BCM patients had abnormally reduced and rod-mediated sensitivities. Fixation location could vary from fovea to parafovea. Chromatic microperimetry demonstrated a large loss of sensitivity to red stimuli presented on a cyan adapting background at the anatomical fovea and surrounding parafovea.

conclusionsBCM rods continue to signal vision under conditions normally associated with daylight vision. Localized and retina-wide outcome measures were examined to evaluate possible improvement of L/M-cone-based vision in a clinical trial.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolClinical Trials as TopicColor Vision DefectsCone OpsinsDark AdaptationEye MovementsFovea CentralisHumansLightMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePhotic StimulationCone Opsins

Identifiers

PMID25909963
PMCPMC4409040
OpenAlexW2002423689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.