Tobias Duncker1, Stephen H Tsang2, Russell L Woods3, Winston Lee1, Jana Zernant1, Rando Allikmets2, François C Delori3, Janet R Sparrow2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States 2Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States. 3. Schepens Eye Research Institute and Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess whether quantitative fundus autofluorescence (qAF), a measure of RPE lipofuscin, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) can aid in the differentiation of patients with fundus features that could either be related to ABCA4 mutations or be part of the phenotypic spectrum of pattern dystrophies. METHODS: Autofluorescence images (30°, 488-nm excitation) from 39 patients (67 eyes) were acquired with a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope equipped with an internal fluorescent reference and were quantified as previously described. In addition, horizontal SD-OCT images through the fovea were obtained. Patients were screened for ABCA4 and PRPH2/RDS mutations. RESULTS: ABCA4 mutations were identified in 19 patients (mean age, 37 ± 12 years) and PRPH2/RDS mutations in 8 patients (mean age, 48 ± 13 years); no known ABCA4 or PRPH2/RDS mutations were found in 12 patients (mean age, 48 ± 9 years). Differentiation of the groups using phenotypic SD-OCT and AF features (e.g., peripapillary sparing, foveal sparing) was not reliable. However, patients with ABCA4 mutations could be discriminated reasonably well from other patients when qAF values were corrected for age and race. In general, ABCA4 patients had higher qAF values than PRPH2/RDS patients, while most patients without mutations in PRPH2/RDS or ABCA4 had qAF levels within the normal range. CONCLUSIONS: The high qAF levels of ABCA4-positive patients are a hallmark of ABCA4-related disease. The reason for high qAF among many PRPH2/RDS-positive patients is not known; higher RPE lipofuscin accumulation may be a primary or secondary effect of the PRPH2/RDS mutation.
PURPOSE: To assess whether quantitative fundus autofluorescence (qAF), a measure of RPE lipofuscin, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) can aid in the differentiation of patients with fundus features that could either be related to ABCA4 mutations or be part of the phenotypic spectrum of pattern dystrophies. METHODS: Autofluorescence images (30°, 488-nm excitation) from 39 patients (67 eyes) were acquired with a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope equipped with an internal fluorescent reference and were quantified as previously described. In addition, horizontal SD-OCT images through the fovea were obtained. Patients were screened for ABCA4 and PRPH2/RDS mutations. RESULTS:ABCA4 mutations were identified in 19 patients (mean age, 37 ± 12 years) and PRPH2/RDS mutations in 8 patients (mean age, 48 ± 13 years); no known ABCA4 or PRPH2/RDS mutations were found in 12 patients (mean age, 48 ± 9 years). Differentiation of the groups using phenotypic SD-OCT and AF features (e.g., peripapillary sparing, foveal sparing) was not reliable. However, patients with ABCA4 mutations could be discriminated reasonably well from other patients when qAF values were corrected for age and race. In general, ABCA4patients had higher qAF values than PRPH2/RDSpatients, while most patients without mutations in PRPH2/RDS or ABCA4 had qAF levels within the normal range. CONCLUSIONS: The high qAF levels of ABCA4-positive patients are a hallmark of ABCA4-related disease. The reason for high qAF among many PRPH2/RDS-positive patients is not known; higher RPE lipofuscin accumulation may be a primary or secondary effect of the PRPH2/RDS mutation.
Authors: Pranab Maiti; Jian Kong; So Ra Kim; Janet R Sparrow; Rando Allikmets; Robert R Rando Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2006-01-24 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Roxana A Radu; Yun Han; Tam V Bui; Steven Nusinowitz; Dean Bok; Jay Lichter; Ken Widder; Gabriel H Travis; Nathan L Mata Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Artur V Cideciyan; Malgorzata Swider; Tomas S Aleman; Alexander Sumaroka; Sharon B Schwartz; Marisa I Roman; Ann H Milam; Jean Bennett; Edwin M Stone; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: R Allikmets; N Singh; H Sun; N F Shroyer; A Hutchinson; A Chidambaram; B Gerrard; L Baird; D Stauffer; A Peiffer; A Rattner; P Smallwood; Y Li; K L Anderson; R A Lewis; J Nathans; M Leppert; M Dean; J R Lupski Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Rafal Farjo; Jeff S Skaggs; Barbara A Nagel; Alexander B Quiambao; Zack A Nash; Steven J Fliesler; Muna I Naash Journal: J Cell Biol Date: 2006-04-03 Impact factor: 10.539
Authors: Tobias Duncker; Gregory E Stein; Winston Lee; Stephen H Tsang; Jana Zernant; Srilaxmi Bearelly; Donald C Hood; Vivienne C Greenstein; François C Delori; Rando Allikmets; Janet R Sparrow Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Janet R Sparrow; Tobias Duncker; Kaspar Schuerch; Maarjaliis Paavo; Jose Ronaldo Lima de Carvalho Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Manon H C A Peeters; Mubeen Khan; Anoek A M B Rooijakkers; Timo Mulders; Lonneke Haer-Wigman; Camiel J F Boon; Caroline C W Klaver; L Ingeborgh van den Born; Carel B Hoyng; Frans P M Cremers; Anneke I den Hollander; Claire-Marie Dhaenens; Rob W J Collin Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 4.700
Authors: Xiangrong Kong; Kaoru Fujinami; Rupert W Strauss; Beatriz Munoz; Sheila K West; Artur V Cideciyan; Michel Michaelides; Mohamed Ahmed; Ann-Margret Ervin; Etienne Schönbach; Janet K Cheetham; Hendrik P N Scholl Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Kaspar Schuerch; Russell L Woods; Winston Lee; Tobias Duncker; François C Delori; Rando Allikmets; Stephen H Tsang; Janet R Sparrow Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Virginie M M Buhler; Lieselotte Berger; André Schaller; Martin S Zinkernagel; Sebastian Wolf; Pascal Escher Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 4.096
Authors: Melissa J Reeves; Kerry E Goetz; Bin Guan; Ehsan Ullah; Delphine Blain; Wadih M Zein; Santa J Tumminia; Robert B Hufnagel Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2020-07-05 Impact factor: 4.700