Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35402632›Full record

ArticleMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development2022

A systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration.

Michael J Gilhooley, Moritz Lindner, Teele Palumaa, Steven Hughes, Stuart N Peirson, Mark W Hankins

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Optogenetic Therapy for Visual Restoration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  18. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Michael J GilhooleyNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QU, UK.
Moritz LindnerNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QU, UK.
Teele PalumaaJules Thorne SCNi, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QU, UK.
Steven HughesNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QU, UK.
Stuart N PeirsonNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QU, UK.
Mark W HankinsNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QU, UK.
University of Oxford · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBPhilipps University of Marburg · DE

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S026266/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During inherited retinal degenerations (IRDs), vision is lost due to photoreceptor cell death; however, a range of optogenetic tools have been shown to restore light responses in animal models. Restored response characteristics vary between tools and the neuronal cell population to which they are delivered: the interplay between these is complex, but targeting upstream neurons (such as retinal bipolar cells) may provide functional benefit by retaining intraretinal signal processing. In this study, our aim was to compare two optogenetic tools: mammalian melanopsin (hOPN4) and microbial red-shifted channelrhodopsin (ReaChR) expressed within two subpopulations of surviving cells in a degenerate retina. Intravitreal adeno-associated viral vectors and mouse models utilising the Cre/lox system restricted expression to populations dominated by bipolar cells or retinal ganglion cells and was compared with non-targeted delivery using the chicken beta actin (CBA) promoter. In summary, we found bipolar-targeted optogenetic tools produced faster kinetics and flatter intensity-response relationships compared with non-targeted or retinal-ganglion-cell-targeted hOPN4. Hence, optogenetic tools of both mammalian and microbial origins show advantages when targeted to bipolar cells. This demonstrates the advantage of bipolar-cell-targeted optogenetics for vision restoration in IRDs. We therefore developed a bipolar-cell-specific gene delivery system employing a compressed promoter with the potential for clinical translation.

Indexed as

bipolar cellsinherited retinal degenerationsmelanopsinoptogeneticsReaChR

Identifiers

PMID35402632
PMCPMC8956963
OpenAlexW4220794351

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.