Wadih M Zein1, Benedetto Falsini1, Ekaterina T Tsilou1, Amy E Turriff1, Julie M Schultz2, Thomas B Friedman2, Carmen C Brewer3, Christopher K Zalewski3, Kelly A King3, Julie A Muskett3, Atteeq U Rehman2, Robert J Morell2, Andrew J Griffith3, Paul A Sieving4. 1. National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States. 2. Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States. 3. Otolaryngology Branch, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States. 4. National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Progressive decline of psychophysical cone-mediated measures has been reported in type 1 (USH1) and type 2 (USH2) Usher syndrome. Conventional cone electroretinogram (ERG) responses in USH demonstrate poor signal-to-noise ratio. We evaluated cone signals in USH1 and USH2 by recording microvolt level cycle-by-cycle (CxC) ERG. METHODS: Responses of molecularly genotyped USH1 (n = 18) and USH2 (n = 24) subjects (age range, 15-69 years) were compared with those of controls (n = 12). A subset of USH1 (n = 9) and USH2 (n = 9) subjects was examined two to four times over 2 to 8 years. Photopic CxC ERG and conventional 30-Hz flicker ERG were recorded on the same visits. RESULTS: Usher syndrome subjects showed considerable cone flicker ERG amplitude losses and timing phase delays (P < 0.01) compared with controls. USH1 and USH2 had similar rates of progressive logarithmic ERG amplitude decline with disease duration (-0.012 log μV/y). Of interest, ERG phase delays did not progress over time. Two USH1C subjects retained normal response timing despite reduced amplitudes. The CxC ERG method provided reliable responses in all subjects, whereas conventional ERG was undetectable in 7 of 42 subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Cycle-by-cycle ERG showed progressive loss of amplitude in both USH1 and USH2 subjects, comparable to that reported with psychophysical measures. Usher subjects showed abnormal ERG response latency, but this changed less than amplitude with time. In USH syndrome, CxC ERG is more sensitive than conventional ERG and warrants consideration as an outcome measure in USH treatment trials. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Progressive decline of psychophysical cone-mediated measures has been reported in type 1 (USH1) and type 2 (USH2) Usher syndrome. Conventional cone electroretinogram (ERG) responses in USH demonstrate poor signal-to-noise ratio. We evaluated cone signals in USH1 and USH2 by recording microvolt level cycle-by-cycle (CxC) ERG. METHODS: Responses of molecularly genotyped USH1 (n = 18) and USH2 (n = 24) subjects (age range, 15-69 years) were compared with those of controls (n = 12). A subset of USH1 (n = 9) and USH2 (n = 9) subjects was examined two to four times over 2 to 8 years. Photopic CxC ERG and conventional 30-Hz flicker ERG were recorded on the same visits. RESULTS: Usher syndrome subjects showed considerable cone flicker ERG amplitude losses and timing phase delays (P < 0.01) compared with controls. USH1 and USH2 had similar rates of progressive logarithmic ERG amplitude decline with disease duration (-0.012 log μV/y). Of interest, ERG phase delays did not progress over time. Two USH1C subjects retained normal response timing despite reduced amplitudes. The CxC ERG method provided reliable responses in all subjects, whereas conventional ERG was undetectable in 7 of 42 subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Cycle-by-cycle ERG showed progressive loss of amplitude in both USH1 and USH2 subjects, comparable to that reported with psychophysical measures. Usher subjects showed abnormal ERG response latency, but this changed less than amplitude with time. In USH syndrome, CxC ERG is more sensitive than conventional ERG and warrants consideration as an outcome measure in USH treatment trials. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
Authors: Atteeq U Rehman; Regie Lyn P Santos-Cortez; Robert J Morell; Meghan C Drummond; Taku Ito; Kwanghyuk Lee; Asma A Khan; Muhammad Asim R Basra; Naveed Wasif; Muhammad Ayub; Rana A Ali; Syed I Raza; Deborah A Nickerson; Jay Shendure; Michael Bamshad; Saima Riazuddin; Neil Billington; Shaheen N Khan; Penelope L Friedman; Andrew J Griffith; Wasim Ahmad; Sheikh Riazuddin; Suzanne M Leal; Thomas B Friedman Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Samuel G Jacobson; Artur V Cideciyan; Dan Gibbs; Alexander Sumaroka; Alejandro J Roman; Tomas S Aleman; Sharon B Schwartz; Melani B Olivares; Robert C Russell; Janet D Steinberg; Margaret A Kenna; William J Kimberling; Heidi L Rehm; David S Williams Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Sharon B Schwartz; Tomas S Aleman; Artur V Cideciyan; Elizabeth A M Windsor; Alexander Sumaroka; Alejandro J Roman; Tej Rane; Elaine E Smilko; Jean Bennett; Edwin M Stone; William J Kimberling; Xue-Zhong Liu; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Michael A Sandberg; Bernard Rosner; Carol Weigel-DiFranco; Terri L McGee; Thaddeus P Dryja; Eliot L Berson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-07-18 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Alessandro Iannaccone; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Maria Laura Ciccarelli; Salvatore A Tedesco; Claudio Macaluso; William J Kimberling; Grant W Somes Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Frans P M Cremers; William J Kimberling; Maigi Külm; Arjan P de Brouwer; Erwin van Wijk; Heleen te Brinke; Cor W R J Cremers; Lies H Hoefsloot; Sandro Banfi; Francesca Simonelli; Johannes C Fleischhauer; Wolfgang Berger; Phil M Kelley; Elene Haralambous; Maria Bitner-Glindzicz; Andrew R Webster; Zubin Saihan; Elfride De Baere; Bart P Leroy; Giuliana Silvestri; Gareth J McKay; Robert K Koenekoop; Jose M Millan; Thomas Rosenberg; Tarja Joensuu; Eeva-Marja Sankila; Dominique Weil; Mike D Weston; Bernd Wissinger; Hannie Kremer Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2006-09-08 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Elodie M Richard; Regie Lyn P Santos-Cortez; Rabia Faridi; Atteeq U Rehman; Kwanghyuk Lee; Mohsin Shahzad; Anushree Acharya; Asma A Khan; Ayesha Imtiaz; Imen Chakchouk; Christina Takla; Izoduwa Abbe; Maria Rafeeq; Khurram Liaqat; Taimur Chaudhry; Michael J Bamshad; Deborah A Nickerson; Isabelle Schrauwen; Shaheen N Khan; Robert J Morell; Saba Zafar; Muhammad Ansar; Zubair M Ahmed; Wasim Ahmad; Sheikh Riazuddin; Thomas B Friedman; Suzanne M Leal; Saima Riazuddin Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2018-11-18 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Alix Trouillet; Elisabeth Dubus; Julie Dégardin; Amrit Estivalet; Ivana Ivkovic; David Godefroy; Diego García-Ayuso; Manuel Simonutti; Iman Sahly; José A Sahel; Aziz El-Amraoui; Christine Petit; Serge Picaud Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 4.379