ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Advantages of human opsins in optogenetic visual restoration.
Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Restorative and regenerative therapies for vision loss.Eye (London, England) · 2026Review
- Modalities of vision restoration in optic neuropathies and retinal disease.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2026Review
- Using Virtual Patients to Predict Perceptual Outcomes for Optogenetic Sight Recovery Technologies.Research square · 2026Article
- Using Virtual Patients to Predict Perceptual Outcomes for Optogenetic Sight Recovery Technologies.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Bionic vision technologies: progress and perspectives on retinal prostheses and optogenetics for the treatment of advanced retinal degeneration.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Review
- Functional methods for evaluating the efficacy of retinal optogenetic therapy for vision restoration.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optogenetic vision restoration has progressed from proof-of-concept to early clinical testing, yet most programmes rely on microbial channels that demand high irradiance and offer limited adaptation. This review synthesizes preclinical and clinical evidence comparing microbial actuators with human opsins (rhodopsin, cone opsins, melanopsin) and outlines vector and safety considerations for translation. Human opsins activate G-protein-coupled cascades, providing intrinsic signal amplification and operation at room-light levels (∼10
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.