ArticleJCI insight2025
Interaction between native and prosthetic visual responses in optogenetic visual restoration.
Article in JCI insight, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crosstalk-free optical indicator-actuator combinations for bidirectional optogenetics.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- Bionic vision technologies: progress and perspectives on retinal prostheses and optogenetics for the treatment of advanced retinal degeneration.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Review
- Optogenetic vision restoration in the face of secondary and tertiary remodeling in the rd1 mouse retina.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Degenerative retinal disorders leading to irreversible photoreceptor death are a common cause of blindness. Optogenetic gene therapy aims to restore vision in affected individuals by introducing light-sensitive opsins into the surviving neurons of the inner retina. While up until now, the main focus of optogenetic therapy has been on terminally blind individuals, treating at stages where residual native vision is present could have several advantages. However, it is still unknown how residual native and optogenetic vision would interact if present at the same time. Using transgenic mice expressing the optogenetic tool ReaChR in ON-bipolar cells, we herein examine this interaction through electroretinography (ERG) and visually evoked potentials (VEP). We find that optogenetic responses show a peculiar ERG signature and are enhanced in retinas without photoreceptor loss. Conversely, native responses are dampened in the presence of ReaChR. Moreover, in VEP recordings, we find that optogenetic responses reach the cortex asynchronous to the native response. These findings should be taken into consideration when planning future clinical trials and may direct future preclinical research to optimize optogenetic approaches for visual restoration. The identified ERG signatures, moreover, may serve to track treatment efficiency in clinical trials.
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.