PURPOSE: To characterize in detail the phenotype and genotype of patients with pericentral retinal degeneration (PRD). METHODS: Patients were screened for an annular ring scotoma ranging from 3° to 40° (n = 28, ages 24-71) with kinetic perimetry. All patients had pigmentary retinopathy in the region of the dysfunction. Further studies included cross-sectional and en face imaging, static chromatic perimetry, and electroretinography. Molecular screening was performed. RESULTS: Genotypes of 14 of 28 PRD patients were identified: There were mutations in eight different genes previously associated with autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive RDs. Kinetic fields monitored in some patients over years to more than a decade could be stable or show increased extent of the scotoma. Electroretinograms were recordable but with different severities of dysfunction. Patterns of photoreceptor outer nuclear layer (ONL) loss corresponded to the distribution of visual dysfunction. Outer nuclear layer thickness topography and en face imaging indicated that the greatest disease expression was in the area of known highest rod photoreceptor density. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular heterogeneity was a feature of the PRD phenotype. Many of the molecular causes were also associated with other phenotypes, such as maculopathies, typical retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and cone-rod dystrophy. The pericentral pattern of retinal degeneration is thus confirmed to be an uncommon phenotype of many different genotypes rather than a distinct disease entity.
PURPOSE: To characterize in detail the phenotype and genotype of patients with pericentral retinal degeneration (PRD). METHODS:Patients were screened for an annular ring scotoma ranging from 3° to 40° (n = 28, ages 24-71) with kinetic perimetry. All patients had pigmentary retinopathy in the region of the dysfunction. Further studies included cross-sectional and en face imaging, static chromatic perimetry, and electroretinography. Molecular screening was performed. RESULTS: Genotypes of 14 of 28 PRDpatients were identified: There were mutations in eight different genes previously associated with autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive RDs. Kinetic fields monitored in some patients over years to more than a decade could be stable or show increased extent of the scotoma. Electroretinograms were recordable but with different severities of dysfunction. Patterns of photoreceptor outer nuclear layer (ONL) loss corresponded to the distribution of visual dysfunction. Outer nuclear layer thickness topography and en face imaging indicated that the greatest disease expression was in the area of known highest rod photoreceptor density. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular heterogeneity was a feature of the PRD phenotype. Many of the molecular causes were also associated with other phenotypes, such as maculopathies, typical retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and cone-rod dystrophy. The pericentral pattern of retinal degeneration is thus confirmed to be an uncommon phenotype of many different genotypes rather than a distinct disease entity.
Authors: A R Webster; E Héon; A J Lotery; K Vandenburgh; T L Casavant; K T Oh; G Beck; G A Fishman; B L Lam; A Levin; J R Heckenlively; S G Jacobson; R G Weleber; V C Sheffield; E M Stone Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: N B Haider; S G Jacobson; A V Cideciyan; R Swiderski; L M Streb; C Searby; G Beck; R Hockey; D B Hanna; S Gorman; D Duhl; R Carmi; J Bennett; R G Weleber; G A Fishman; A F Wright; E M Stone; V C Sheffield Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: A V Cideciyan; D C Hood; Y Huang; E Banin; Z Y Li; E M Stone; A H Milam; S G Jacobson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1998-06-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J M Rozet; S Gerber; E Souied; I Perrault; S Châtelin; I Ghazi; C Leowski; J L Dufier; A Munnich; J Kaplan Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 1998 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Robert A Sisk; Robert B Hufnagel; Ailee Laham; Elizabeth S Wohler; Nara Sobreira; Zubair M Ahmed Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Artur V Cideciyan; Samuel G Jacobson; Alejandro J Roman; Alexander Sumaroka; Vivian Wu; Jason Charng; Brianna Lisi; Malgorzata Swider; Gustavo D Aguirre; William A Beltran Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ana Fakin; Maja Šuštar; Jelka Brecelj; Crystel Bonnet; Christine Petit; Andrej Zupan; Damjan Glavač; Martina Jarc-Vidmar; Saba Battelino; Marko Hawlina Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 4.096
Authors: Samuel G Jacobson; Artur V Cideciyan; Allen C Ho; Igor V Peshenko; Alexandra V Garafalo; Alejandro J Roman; Alexander Sumaroka; Vivian Wu; Arun K Krishnan; Rebecca Sheplock; Sanford L Boye; Alexander M Dizhoor; Shannon E Boye Journal: iScience Date: 2021-04-11
Authors: Samuel G Jacobson; David B McGuigan; Alexander Sumaroka; Alejandro J Roman; Michaela L Gruzensky; Rebecca Sheplock; Judy Palma; Sharon B Schwartz; Tomas S Aleman; Artur V Cideciyan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jason Comander; Carol Weigel-DiFranco; Matthew Maher; Emily Place; Aliete Wan; Shyana Harper; Michael A Sandberg; Daniel Navarro-Gomez; Eric A Pierce Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 4.096
Authors: Alexander Sumaroka; Artur V Cideciyan; Jason Charng; Vivian Wu; Christian A Powers; Bhavya S Iyer; Brianna Lisi; Malgorzata Swider; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-10-27 Impact factor: 5.923