PURPOSE: To describe in detail the clinical phenotype and electrophysiological features of three patients with Leber congenital amaurosis caused by mutations of AIPL1. METHODS: Ophthalmologic examination, color fundus photography, detailed electrophysiological assessment, and screening of AIPL1 were undertaken in three subjects. One patient also underwent visual field testing and spectral domain-optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: All three patients, two of whom were siblings, had histories consistent with Leber congenital amaurosis (severely reduced vision, poorly responsive pupils, and nystagmus presenting within the first year of life). However, each patient had recordable and similar electroretinograms (ERGs), which demonstrated absent cone-driven responses and slow insensitive scotopic responses. The first patient was found to have a homozygous Trp278 stop mutation in AIPL1, whereas the siblings were each found to have novel heterozygous mutations in AIPL1 (Leu17Pro and Lys214Asn). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mutations in AIPL1 may present with Leber congenital amaurosis and residual ERGs characterized by slow insensitive scotopic responses. Such responses are likely seen only in very young patients and may not be seen with the typical filter settings recommended by the ISCEV standards because of low-pass filtering. Progressive loss of residual ERG activity in young LCA patients with AIPL1 mutations suggests that gene replacement therapy will likely have to be performed early.
PURPOSE: To describe in detail the clinical phenotype and electrophysiological features of three patients with Leber congenital amaurosis caused by mutations of AIPL1. METHODS: Ophthalmologic examination, color fundus photography, detailed electrophysiological assessment, and screening of AIPL1 were undertaken in three subjects. One patient also underwent visual field testing and spectral domain-optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: All three patients, two of whom were siblings, had histories consistent with Leber congenital amaurosis (severely reduced vision, poorly responsive pupils, and nystagmus presenting within the first year of life). However, each patient had recordable and similar electroretinograms (ERGs), which demonstrated absent cone-driven responses and slow insensitive scotopic responses. The first patient was found to have a homozygous Trp278 stop mutation in AIPL1, whereas the siblings were each found to have novel heterozygous mutations in AIPL1 (Leu17Pro and Lys214Asn). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with mutations in AIPL1 may present with Leber congenital amaurosis and residual ERGs characterized by slow insensitive scotopic responses. Such responses are likely seen only in very young patients and may not be seen with the typical filter settings recommended by the ISCEV standards because of low-pass filtering. Progressive loss of residual ERG activity in young LCA patients with AIPL1 mutations suggests that gene replacement therapy will likely have to be performed early.
Authors: M M Sohocki; S J Bowne; L S Sullivan; S Blackshaw; C L Cepko; A M Payne; S S Bhattacharya; S Khaliq; S Qasim Mehdi; D G Birch; W R Harrison; F F Elder; J R Heckenlively; S P Daiger Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Jacqueline van der Spuy; J Paul Chapple; Brian J Clark; Philip J Luthert; Charanjit S Sethi; Michael E Cheetham Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Francesco Testa; Enrico Maria Surace; Settimio Rossi; Elena Marrocco; Annagiusi Gargiulo; Valentina Di Iorio; Carmela Ziviello; Anna Nesti; Simona Fecarotta; Maria Laura Bacci; Massimo Giunti; Michele Della Corte; Sandro Banfi; Alberto Auricchio; Francesca Simonelli Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Visvanathan Ramamurthy; Melanie Roberts; Focco van den Akker; Gregory Niemi; T A Reh; James B Hurley Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-10-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Sharola Dharmaraj; Bart P Leroy; Melanie M Sohocki; Robert K Koenekoop; Isabelle Perrault; Khalid Anwar; Shagufta Khaliq; R Summathi Devi; David G Birch; Elaine De Pool; Natalio Izquierdo; Lionel Van Maldergem; Mohammad Ismail; Annette M Payne; Graham E Holder; Shomi S Bhattacharya; Alan C Bird; Josseline Kaplan; Irene H Maumenee Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2004-07
Authors: Jacqueline van der Spuy; Jeong H Kim; Young S Yu; Agoston Szel; Philip J Luthert; Brian J Clark; Michael E Cheetham Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Xiaoqing Liu; Oleg V Bulgakov; Xiao-Hong Wen; Michael L Woodruff; Basil Pawlyk; Jun Yang; Gordon L Fain; Michael A Sandberg; Clint L Makino; Tiansen Li Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-09-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Robert B Hufnagel; Zubair M Ahmed; Zélia M Corrêa; Robert A Sisk Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Cristy A Ku; Vince A Chiodo; Sanford L Boye; Abigail Hayes; Andrew F X Goldberg; William W Hauswirth; Visvanathan Ramamurthy Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Mei Hong Tan; Donna S Mackay; Jill Cowing; Hoai Viet Tran; Alexander J Smith; Genevieve A Wright; Arundhati Dev-Borman; Robert H Henderson; Phillip Moradi; Isabelle Russell-Eggitt; Robert E MacLaren; Anthony G Robson; Michael E Cheetham; Dorothy A Thompson; Andrew R Webster; Michel Michaelides; Robin R Ali; Anthony T Moore Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: F M Mowat; K R Gornik; A Dinculescu; S L Boye; W W Hauswirth; S M Petersen-Jones; J T Bartoe Journal: Gene Ther Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 5.250