ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2018
A Robust Optomotor Assay for Assessing the Efficacy of Optogenetic Tools for Vision Restoration.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- AAV dose-dependent transduction efficiency in retinal ganglion cells and functional efficacy of optogenetic vision restoration.Gene therapy · 2024Article
- Optogenetic Therapy for Visual Restoration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Optogenetic restoration of high sensitivity vision with bReaChES, a red-shifted channelrhodopsin.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2022Article
- Assessing the impact of monocular deprivation on visual evoked potentials, behavior, and visual plasticity in juvenile mice.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- The functional characteristics of optogenetic gene therapy for vision restoration.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021Article
- Optogenetic Strategies for Vision Restoration.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Review
- Comparison of AAV-Mediated Optogenetic Vision Restoration between Retinal Ganglion Cell Expression and ON Bipolar Cell Targeting.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2020Article
- Restoring vision at the fovea.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2019Article
- Using Looming Visual Stimuli to Evaluate Mouse Vision.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2019Article
- Improved CoChR Variants Restore Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity in a Mouse Model of Blindness under Ambient Light Conditions.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To develop an animal behavioral assay for the quantitative assessment of the functional efficacy of optogenetic therapies. Methods: A triple-knockout (TKO) mouse line, Gnat1-/-Cnga3-/-Opn4-/-, and a double-knockout mouse line, Gnat1-/-Cnga3-/-, were employed. The expression of channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) and its three more light-sensitive mutants, ChR2-L132C, ChR2-L132C/T159C, and ChR2-132C/T159S, in inner retinal neurons was achieved using rAAV2 vectors via intravitreal delivery. Pupillary constriction was assessed by measuring the pupil diameter. The optomotor response (OMR) was examined using a homemade optomotor system equipped with light-emitting diodes as light stimulation. Results: A robust OMR was restored in the ChR2-mutant-expressing TKO mice; however, significant pupillary constriction was observed only for the ChR2-L132C/T159S mutant. The ability to evoke an OMR was dependent on both the light intensity and grating frequency. The most light-sensitive frequency for the three ChR2 mutants was approximately 0.042 cycles per degree. Among the three ChR2 mutants, ChR2-L132C/T159S was the most light sensitive, followed by ChR2-L132C/T159C and ChR2-L132C. Melanopsin-mediated pupillary constriction resulted in a substantial reduction in the light sensitivity of the ChR2-mediated OMR. Conclusions: The OMR assay using TKO mice enabled the quantitative assessment of the efficacy of different optogenetic tools and the properties of optogenetically restored vision. Thus, the assay can serve as a valuable tool for developing effective optogenetic therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.