Drew Scoles1, Yusufu N Sulai, Robert F Cooper, Brian P Higgins, Ryan D Johnson, Joseph Carroll, Alfredo Dubra, Kimberly E Stepien. 1. *Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; †Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; ‡Department of Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; §Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and ¶Department of Biophysics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize outer retina structure in best vitelliform macular dystrophy (BVMD) and to determine the effect of macular lesions on overlying and adjacent photoreceptors. METHODS: Five individuals with BVMD were followed prospectively with spectral domain optical coherence tomography and confocal and nonconfocal split-detector adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO). The AOSLO cone photoreceptor mosaic images were obtained within and around retinal lesions. Cone density was measured inside and outside lesions. In 2 subjects, densities were compared with published measurements acquired ∼2.5 years before. One subject was imaged 3 times over a 5-month period. RESULTS: The AOSLO imaging demonstrated that photoreceptor morphology within BVMD retinal lesions was highly variable depending on the disease stage, with photoreceptor structure present even in advanced disease. The AOSLO imaging was repeatable even in severe disease over short-time and long-time intervals. Photoreceptor density was normal in retinal areas immediately adjacent to lesions and stable over ∼2.5 years. Mobile disk-like structures possibly representing subretinal macrophages were also observed. CONCLUSION: Combined confocal and nonconfocal split-detector AOSLO imaging reveals substantial variability within clinical lesions in all stages of BVMD. Longitudinal cellular photoreceptor imaging could prove a powerful tool for understanding disease progression and monitoring emerging therapeutic treatment response in inherited degenerations such as BVMD.
PURPOSE: To characterize outer retina structure in best vitelliform macular dystrophy (BVMD) and to determine the effect of macular lesions on overlying and adjacent photoreceptors. METHODS: Five individuals with BVMD were followed prospectively with spectral domain optical coherence tomography and confocal and nonconfocal split-detector adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO). The AOSLO cone photoreceptor mosaic images were obtained within and around retinal lesions. Cone density was measured inside and outside lesions. In 2 subjects, densities were compared with published measurements acquired ∼2.5 years before. One subject was imaged 3 times over a 5-month period. RESULTS: The AOSLO imaging demonstrated that photoreceptor morphology within BVMD retinal lesions was highly variable depending on the disease stage, with photoreceptor structure present even in advanced disease. The AOSLO imaging was repeatable even in severe disease over short-time and long-time intervals. Photoreceptor density was normal in retinal areas immediately adjacent to lesions and stable over ∼2.5 years. Mobile disk-like structures possibly representing subretinal macrophages were also observed. CONCLUSION: Combined confocal and nonconfocal split-detector AOSLO imaging reveals substantial variability within clinical lesions in all stages of BVMD. Longitudinal cellular photoreceptor imaging could prove a powerful tool for understanding disease progression and monitoring emerging therapeutic treatment response in inherited degenerations such as BVMD.
Best vitelliform macular dystrophy (BVMD), also known as Best disease (OMIM 607854;
BEST1), is an autosomal dominant macular degeneration of variable
penetrance. The disorder is characterized by varying accumulation of yellowish
vitelliform material that can evolve into atrophic, fibrotic appearing
lesions.[1,2] Clinical vitelliform lesions of BVMD are usually
restricted to the macula, although lesions have been reported at more eccentric
locations.[3]Mutations in the BEST1 gene located on chromosome 11q13 encoding the
protein bestophin-1 are known to cause BVMD and several other retinal degenerative
diseases.[4,5] Bestrophin-1 has been localized to the basolateral
membrane of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE)[6] and is thought to function as a calcium-sensitive chloride
channel while also influencing other channel functions.[7-9]
Dysfunction of this channel can lead to the hallmark findings of BVMD, including an
abnormal electrooculogram, an electrophysiological test that measures changes in the
transepithelial potential across the RPE throughout the retina.[10] Electrooculogram often shows
diminished light peak response in individuals with BVMD, even when no clinical features
are evident.[11]Limited histological studies of BVMD have found an abnormal accumulation of lipofuscin
granules in the RPE of some donor eyes[12-14] with
photoreceptor loss over areas of intact RPE.[12,15] These findings are in
agreement with a knock-in mouse model of BVMD that also demonstrated subretinal deposits
of unphagocystosed photoreceptor outer segments and lipofuscin granules.[16] Some authors have hypothesized that
dysfunction of the RPE leads to accumulation of toxic materials, which in turn leads to
degeneration of the overlying photoreceptors in BVMD.[12,15] Some studies
have found structurally normal RPE in BVMD lesions, with the primary impact of BVMD
appearing to be subretinal to photoreceptors themselves.[17]Advanced retinal imaging techniques have given insight into the effects of
BEST1 mutations on outer retinal structures in BVMD. Optical
coherence tomography (OCT) studies have localized the vitelliform material in BVMD to
the subretinal space,[17-21] and some have shown increased
thickening of the reflective band corresponding to photoreceptor outer
segments.[17,18] Recently, Abramoff et al[22] demonstrated what appears to be outer segment
photoreceptor elongation with light adaptation in areas of the macula outside retinal
lesions in BVMD, which suggests photoreceptor dysfunction beyond clinically apparent
lesions. However, multifocal electroretinogram irregularities correspond to involved
lesion areas,[23] and quantitative
fundus autofluorescence on patients with BVMD showed normal quantitative fundus
autofluorescence in nonlesion areas, suggesting no increased lipofuscin levels outside
observed retinal lesions.[24]
Previously, confocal adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO) indicated
that some photoreceptor structure persists over areas of Best lesions, and photoreceptor
density is normal in areas adjacent to clinical lesions in BVMD.[21] This study uses a new imaging
technique, nonconfocal split-detector AOSLO, to better delineate photoreceptor structure
in BVMD. Additionally, we sought to analyze changes in the photoreceptor mosaic over
time.
Methods
Subjects
Research procedures followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and were
approved by the institutional review board at the Children's Hospital of WI
(CHW 07/77); 4 previously described family members[21] and 1 unrelated subject, all with identified
mutation (p.Arg218Cys c.652C→T) in BEST1[25] and clinical findings
consistent with BVMD, participated in this study after giving written consent.
See Table 1 for further information about
each subject. Axial length measurement (Zeiss IOL Master; Carl Zeiss Meditec,
Dublin, CA), visual acuity testing, and fundus photography were performed at the
time of research imaging in all subjects.
Table 1.
Subject Demographics
Subject Demographics
Spectral domain optical coherence tomography
Spectral domain optical coherence tomography line and volumetric scans were
performed using the Cirrus HD-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec). The location of the
fovea was determined using the fovea-finder function of the Cirrus HD-OCT, and
marked on the line scan ophthalmoscope image. Additional high-density volumetric
scans acquired using the Bioptigen spectral domain optical coherence tomography
(Bioptigen Inc, Morrisville, NC) nominally covering 7 × 7 mm (1000
A-scans/B-scan, 250 B-scans) were used to create en-face OCT
sections with custom software (Java, Oracle; Redwood City, CA).[26]
En-face projections of the ellipsoid zone were generated to
display the extent of BVMD lesions (Figures 1 and 2). Multiple horizontal
and vertical macular B-scans nominally covering 7 mm (1000 A-scans/B-scan;
Bioptigen) were registered and averaged to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.
All OCT images are displayed on logarithmic intensity scale.
Fig. 1.
Imaging results from subject KS_0601. A.
En-face OCT at the level of the ellipsoid zone reveals
a large ovoid retinal detachment at the location of the lesion. The area
of AOSLO imaging shown below is indicated by the white square, dashed
lines indicate the locations of the B-scans. B and
C. Horizontal and vertical B-scan OCT reveals a large
vitelliform lesion just nasal to the center of the fovea.
D. Confocal AOSLO imaging reveals sparse photoreceptor
reflectivity. E. The split-detector AOSLO imaging reveals a
near-complete mosaic of cone photoreceptors. Cells identified in
(E) show 1:1 correspondence to the sparse reflections
seen in (D) with the exception of the large reflective
clusters. Scale bars (B and C) 200
μm, (D and E) 50
μm.
Fig. 2.
Imaging results from subject KS_0325. A.
En-face OCT at the level of the ellipsoid zone reveals
a very large BVMD lesion with irregular borders, approximately 2.3 mm in
diameter. The area of AOSLO imaging shown in (B and
C) is indicated by the white square, dashed lines
indicate the locations of the B-scans, and dotted rectangle indicates
location of Figure 5,
A and B. B and
C. Horizontal and vertical B-scan OCT reveals a large
atrophic lesion including the entire perifovea centered just inferior to
the fovea. D. Confocal AOSLO imaging reveals clusters of
photoreceptor reflectivity. E. Split-detector AOSLO reveals
numerous photoreceptors in an incomplete mosaic. Most photoreceptors
have abnormal morphology, and some appear to be oriented horizontally,
with corresponding areas in the confocal images darker than the
background (arrows). Scale bars (B and C) 200
μm, (D and E) 50
μm.
Imaging results from subject KS_0601. A.
En-face OCT at the level of the ellipsoid zone reveals
a large ovoid retinal detachment at the location of the lesion. The area
of AOSLO imaging shown below is indicated by the white square, dashed
lines indicate the locations of the B-scans. B and
C. Horizontal and vertical B-scan OCT reveals a large
vitelliform lesion just nasal to the center of the fovea.
D. Confocal AOSLO imaging reveals sparse photoreceptor
reflectivity. E. The split-detector AOSLO imaging reveals a
near-complete mosaic of cone photoreceptors. Cells identified in
(E) show 1:1 correspondence to the sparse reflections
seen in (D) with the exception of the large reflective
clusters. Scale bars (B and C) 200
μm, (D and E) 50
μm.Imaging results from subject KS_0325. A.
En-face OCT at the level of the ellipsoid zone reveals
a very large BVMD lesion with irregular borders, approximately 2.3 mm in
diameter. The area of AOSLO imaging shown in (B and
C) is indicated by the white square, dashed lines
indicate the locations of the B-scans, and dotted rectangle indicates
location of Figure 5,
A and B. B and
C. Horizontal and vertical B-scan OCT reveals a large
atrophic lesion including the entire perifovea centered just inferior to
the fovea. D. Confocal AOSLO imaging reveals clusters of
photoreceptor reflectivity. E. Split-detector AOSLO reveals
numerous photoreceptors in an incomplete mosaic. Most photoreceptors
have abnormal morphology, and some appear to be oriented horizontally,
with corresponding areas in the confocal images darker than the
background (arrows). Scale bars (B and C) 200
μm, (D and E) 50
μm.
Fig. 5.
Short-term and long-term variability in photoreceptor layer imaging with
split-detector AOSLO in KS_0325 near the fovea center. Circles indicate
photoreceptor landmarks identified in both time points. Arrows indicate
features that changed over long (A and B) or short
(C1–2,
D1–2) time scales. Images
(C1–2,
D1–2) depict mobile features of size
consistent with cells (arrows). Note how feature moves away from the
stationary arrow between (C1 and C2) and toward
the arrow between (D1 and D2). The cell in
(C1–2) is visible at the top edge of
(A) (arrow), the cell in
(D1–2) is located approximately 200
μm temporal from (A). A
and B. Scale bar 100 μm.
C1–2 and
D1–2. Scale bar 25
μm.
Adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy
The AOSLO imaging was performed with a custom instrument, modified to capture
light multiply scattered by the retina.[27] The multiply scattered light is divided spatially to
two separate detectors, and the resulting images are then subtracted to form the
nonconfocal split-detector image, which reveals the photoreceptor inner segment
mosaic.[27] Confocal and
split-detector images are recorded simultaneously in perfect spatial register.
Photoreceptor image sequences were recorded at the fovea as well as in the
periphery to approximately 10° superior and temporal to fixation. In
subject KS_0589, an overlying epiretinal membrane in temporal macula obligated
imaging to 10° nasal from fixation. Image sequences were corrected for
sinusoidal distortion caused by the resonant scanner, then registered and
averaged as previously described.[27] Using a simplified Gullstrand 2 schematic eye, the
predicted 291 μm per degree of visual angle was scaled
linearly by the subject's axial length to determine the scale of AOSLO
images. Averaged AOSLO images were aligned manually in Adobe Photoshop (Adobe
Systems Inc, San Jose, CA) to create a large montage. This montage was manually
aligned to the color fundus, line scan ophthalmoscope, en-face
OCT, and to previously acquired AOSLO images[21] (where available) using blood vessel shadows as
landmarks. The location of the fovea was marked on the AOSLO montage, based on
the subject's fixation recorded in the Cirrus HD-OCT line scan
ophthalmoscope image. All AOSLO images are displayed on the linear intensity
scale.To examine longitudinal changes (approximately 2 years elapsed) in the cone
mosaic, previously identified areas of normal cone density were reanalyzed in
subjects KS_0600 and KS_0601. At 3 locations in each subject, confocal AOSLO
images from both time points were first aligned manually and then registered
with rigid translations, using the Stackreg plugin from ImageJ (National
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MA) and finally cropped to the region of
overlap. Cones were identified with a previously described semiautomated
algorithm.[28] Cone
density was calculated within 80 × 80 μm regions of
interest (ROI).To determine the effect of retinal lesions on the photoreceptor mosaic, the cone
density was measured inside and outside macular lesions in all subjects. Because
nonwaveguiding or misaligned photoreceptors are not visualized by confocal
AOSLO,[27,29] split-detector AOSLO images
were chosen for analysis instead. 80 × 80 μm ROIs
were identified and analyzed for cone density across the entire span of AOSLO
imaging in each subject. An ROI was characterized as intralesional if any of the
ROI fell within the limits of the lesion as visualized by
en-face OCT segmented at the level of the ellipsoid zone;
then each lesion was sampled with 5 to 7 ROI to evaluate for local density
variations. Cell locations within the split-detector images were identified
manually. The distance between each ROI and the fovea was estimated, and cone
densities were compared with published normative in vivo values.[30] Normative data were linearly
interpolated to cover the range of measurement locations. Patient data were
pooled across eccentricity for comparison, because there is no measured
difference between temporal and nasal meridians across the eccentricities
studied,[31-33] and superior and inferior
retinal loci are likely to underestimate cone photoreceptor density.[31,32] Density data were evaluated using z-scores, calculated
as the difference between the subject measurement and the normative mean divided
by the standard deviation at that eccentricity. Z-scores of magnitude <2.0
were considered normal, P values < 0.05 were considered
significant.
Results
The subjects included in this study had the same disease causing mutation in
BEST1 and demonstrated different stages of BVMD, with
split-detector AOSLO providing unprecedented views of the photoreceptor pathology
(Figures 1–3). Early in the disease, the photoreceptor mosaic remains contiguous
but with substantially decreased density (Figures 1 and 3A). Later, after further
cell loss has taken place, the photoreceptor packing no longer appears contiguous
(Figures 2, 3, B and C). Figure 3 shows the
span of photoreceptor mosaic changes across the clinically described
pathology[1] of subjects in
this study from early vitelliform lesion to late-stage atrophy and fibrosis.
Fig. 3.
Parafoveal photoreceptor imaging in remaining subjects.
A–C. B-scan OCT,
(D–F), confocal AOSLO imaging, and
(G–I), split-detector AOSLO. The
earliest lesion of this cohort, from KS_0600, manifests as scattered loss of
waveguiding in the confocal image. The split-detector image shows a complete
and normally dense mosaic of photoreceptors. The B-scan from subject KS_0589
reveals a large late vitelliruptive lesion with significant subretinal
debris. The confocal AOSLO image reveals scattered waveguiding
photoreceptors, with a cluster of small reflective dots on top of the large
debris (E). The split-detector image reveals abnormal
photoreceptor morphology and widely varying photoreceptor size over this
small area. The bottom left corner of the image contains enlarged
photoreceptors with local clearings. With this modality, it does not appear
that the debris is covered by photoreceptors as the confocal image suggests.
Despite the obvious retinal atrophy and little ellipsoid zone reflectivity
in subject KS_0599, the split-detector AOSLO image reveals a near-complete
mosaic of photoreceptors at the fovea. The confocal AOSLO image fails to
identify many of the photoreceptors, likely due to their abnormal
waveguiding. Scale bars 100 μm.
Parafoveal photoreceptor imaging in remaining subjects.
A–C. B-scan OCT,
(D–F), confocal AOSLO imaging, and
(G–I), split-detector AOSLO. The
earliest lesion of this cohort, from KS_0600, manifests as scattered loss of
waveguiding in the confocal image. The split-detector image shows a complete
and normally dense mosaic of photoreceptors. The B-scan from subject KS_0589
reveals a large late vitelliruptive lesion with significant subretinal
debris. The confocal AOSLO image reveals scattered waveguiding
photoreceptors, with a cluster of small reflective dots on top of the large
debris (E). The split-detector image reveals abnormal
photoreceptor morphology and widely varying photoreceptor size over this
small area. The bottom left corner of the image contains enlarged
photoreceptors with local clearings. With this modality, it does not appear
that the debris is covered by photoreceptors as the confocal image suggests.
Despite the obvious retinal atrophy and little ellipsoid zone reflectivity
in subject KS_0599, the split-detector AOSLO image reveals a near-complete
mosaic of photoreceptors at the fovea. The confocal AOSLO image fails to
identify many of the photoreceptors, likely due to their abnormal
waveguiding. Scale bars 100 μm.In all subjects, the effect of the BVMD lesion on overlying photoreceptors was
assessed by comparing photoreceptor density within and outside lesions (Figure 4). Intralesion cone density was significantly
reduced in subjects KS_0325, KS_0589, and KS_0601 (z-scores: −5.0 to
−2.5). Near the fovea, KS_0599 exhibited reduced density (z-scores:
−5.0 to −3.6), but returned to normal at the edges of the lesion
(z-scores: −1.5 to −0.6). Intralesion density in subject KS_0600 was
preserved (z-scores: 0.1–0.7). Extralesion cone density was near normal in
all subjects (z-scores: −1.6 to 1.6) with the exception of one measurement in
KS_0589 (z-score: −2.0). Within a lesion, the cone density and cone
appearance varied considerably over short distances, with some regions having almost
no photoreceptors, as shown in Figure 2.
Fig. 4.
Cone photoreceptor density inside and outside lesions. Density was sampled in
all subjects within (filled symbols) and outside their BVMD lesion (open
symbols). Cone density is significantly reduced within the lesions, but
returns to normal outside lesions. Normative data[30] are shown as mean (solid line) ± two
SD (shaded region).
Cone photoreceptor density inside and outside lesions. Density was sampled in
all subjects within (filled symbols) and outside their BVMD lesion (open
symbols). Cone density is significantly reduced within the lesions, but
returns to normal outside lesions. Normative data[30] are shown as mean (solid line) ± two
SD (shaded region).Only KS_0600 and KS_0601 showed clear disease progression in OCT B-scan over 32
months and 30 months, respectively (See Figure, Supplemental Digital Content
1
http://links.lww.com/IAE/A496, which shows longitudinal OCTs for all
subjects). To determine the effect of lesion enlargement on photoreceptor number,
previously analyzed areas were recounted. Three extralesional locations were
analyzed in 2 subjects, at approximately 1° from the fovea and just nasal to
the BVMD lesion, where cone density was previously determined to be
normal.[21] In KS_0601, the
cone density was found to change −2.4%, −1.7%, and 1.2% over a period
of 30 months. In KS_0600, the cone density was found to change 0.0%, 0.5%, and
−2.6% over a period of 32 months. These small variations in cone density are
within the 95% confidence interval for the repeatability of the method of parafoveal
density measurements (2.6%–2.8%)[28] and are, therefore, consistent with no significant
changes.Split-detector AOSLO imaging within BVMD lesions is repeatable, even in subjects with
advanced retinal degeneration as illustrated by the ability to track individual
cells, shown in Figure 5. Here, the same
clusters of photoreceptors were visualized over 4 months follow-up. There were,
however, structures that appeared and disappeared from the images over this time
scale (arrows, Figure 5). These round features
had a lumpy appearance, were on average 20 μm in diameter,
and appeared in areas that previously contained isolated photoreceptors or
apparently empty space. Structures of similar size and appearance were also found to
change in appearance on much shorter time scales, as short as an hour. These
features were only noted in KS_0325, the subject with the most advanced disease.Short-term and long-term variability in photoreceptor layer imaging with
split-detector AOSLO in KS_0325 near the fovea center. Circles indicate
photoreceptor landmarks identified in both time points. Arrows indicate
features that changed over long (A and B) or short
(C1–2,
D1–2) time scales. Images
(C1–2,
D1–2) depict mobile features of size
consistent with cells (arrows). Note how feature moves away from the
stationary arrow between (C1 and C2) and toward
the arrow between (D1 and D2). The cell in
(C1–2) is visible at the top edge of
(A) (arrow), the cell in
(D1–2) is located approximately 200
μm temporal from (A). A
and B. Scale bar 100 μm.
C1–2 and
D1–2. Scale bar 25
μm.
Conclusions
Accurate assessment of cellular structure in inherited retinal degenerations in vivo
can provide invaluable information about the pathology of these degenerations. In
this study, we used newly developed split-detector AOSLO to further assess
photoreceptor structure associated with BVMD in 5 individuals with the same
previously reported BEST1 mutation (p.Arg218Cys). Compared with
confocal imaging, nonconfocal split-detector AOSLO allows for a more accurate
assessment of photoreceptor structure in BVMD, especially in areas of the
photoreceptor mosaic overlying subretinal pathology (Figures 1–3 and see
Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/IAE/A497, which shows split-detector and OCT
imaging within and outside vitelliform lesions).Cone photoreceptor packing within vitelliform lesions can range from normal appearing
mosaic (Figure 3, D and G) to significant
disruption (Figure 2). As highlighted in
patientsKS_0589 and KS_0599 (Figure 3),
significant intralesional variability also exists with focal areas of near-normal
density present next to areas with severe disruption. In the fibrotic stages of BVMD
as seen in KS_0325, cone photoreceptors remain, although sparsely packed and with
focal areas entirely devoid of photoreceptors (Figures 2 and 5). We hypothesize that this
loose packing allows some photoreceptors to freely pivot so that they are oriented
horizontally, allowing visualization of both inner and outer segments of the
photoreceptors (Figure 2—teardrop shaped
structures in split-detector image). This irregular packing underscores the need for
caution when reporting cone photoreceptor densities within areas of pathology as
visualized by AOSLO, as these can vary dramatically, even if measurements are taken
within 100 μm of each other.It has been long debated whether BVMD has only focal clinically apparent fundus
effects or is a true panretinal photoreceptor disorder. The results presented here
show that within clinically apparent lesions, cone photoreceptor inner segments are
enlarged and cone density is reduced. In agreement with previous AOSLO
studies,[21] immediately
adjacent to the lesions, both density and appearance of cone inner segments return
to normal (Figure 4 and see Figure,
Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/IAE/A497, which shows split-detector and OCT
imaging within and outside vitelliform lesions), lending support to BVMD causing
focal photoreceptor lesions. Interestingly, patientKS_0325 has been followed
clinically for 5 years with the imaged lesion exhibiting detachment of the retina
from the RPE over this span. Despite this change, split-detector AOSLO confirms
photoreceptors overlying these lesions still exist, and combined with stable
fixation within the lesions, suggests an alternate pathway for maintenance of the
photoreceptors viability than from the RPE alone.Split-detector imaging also revealed mobile disk-like structures consistent in size
with cells (Figure 5, C and D). Previous
histological studies have hypothesized that these cells represent subretinal
macrophages,[14,34] but their lineages were not
rigorously confirmed. Alternative explanations for these cells include migratory
microglia[35] and
RPE.[36] The significance of
this finding is unknown, but these may represent the first in vivo images of
reactive subretinal cells in a human eye.Recent work by Milenkovic et al[37]
suggests that the shared mutation identified in all participants in this study may
affect volume-regulated anion channels in the RPE differently than other
BEST1 mutations. Although the individuals imaged represent the
spectrum of stages of BVMD, the clinical and subclinical phenotypes described here
cannot necessarily be extended to other mutations in BEST1.
Conversely, the diverse findings displayed above are more likely related to the
stage of the disease rather than differential pathophysiology.In summary, the improved resolution possible with split-detector AOSLO allows for
increased understanding of cellular disease processes and could potentially be
useful in monitoring therapeutic response on a cellular level in diseases such as
BVMD. Future studies should be expanded to include high-resolution imaging in
individuals with other mutations in BEST1 to further explore the
genotype–phenotype correlations in photoreceptor morphology in BVMD.
Authors: A D Marmorstein; L Y Marmorstein; M Rayborn; X Wang; J G Hollyfield; K Petrukhin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2000-11-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Emma C Zanzottera; Jeffrey D Messinger; Thomas Ach; R Theodore Smith; K Bailey Freund; Christine A Curcio Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Melissa A Wilk; John T McAllister; Robert F Cooper; Adam M Dubis; Teresa N Patitucci; Phyllis Summerfelt; Jennifer L Anderson; Kimberly E Stepien; Deborah M Costakos; Thomas B Connor; William J Wirostko; Pei-Wen Chiang; Alfredo Dubra; Christine A Curcio; Murray H Brilliant; C Gail Summers; Joseph Carroll Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Drew Scoles; John A Flatter; Robert F Cooper; Christopher S Langlo; Scott Robison; Maureen Neitz; David V Weinberg; Mark E Pennesi; Dennis P Han; Alfredo Dubra; Joseph Carroll Journal: Retina Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: B Bakall; R A Radu; J B Stanton; J M Burke; B S McKay; C Wadelius; R F Mullins; E M Stone; G H Travis; A D Marmorstein Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2007-03-19 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: David B Kay; Megan E Land; Robert F Cooper; Adam M Dubis; Pooja Godara; Alfredo Dubra; Joseph Carroll; Kimberly E Stepien Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Niamh Wynne; Heather Heitkotter; Erica N Woertz; Robert F Cooper; Joseph Carroll Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 3.048
Authors: Manuela Völkner; Felix Wagner; Lisa Maria Steinheuer; Madalena Carido; Thomas Kurth; Ali Yazbeck; Jana Schor; Stephanie Wieneke; Lynn J A Ebner; Claudia Del Toro Runzer; David Taborsky; Katja Zoschke; Marlen Vogt; Sebastian Canzler; Andreas Hermann; Shahryar Khattak; Jörg Hackermüller; Mike O Karl Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Stephen A Burns; Ann E Elsner; Kaitlyn A Sapoznik; Raymond L Warner; Thomas J Gast Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Lynn W Sun; Ryan D Johnson; Vesper Williams; Phyllis Summerfelt; Alfredo Dubra; David V Weinberg; Kimberly E Stepien; Gerald A Fishman; Joseph Carroll Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Karina E Guziewicz; Artur V Cideciyan; William A Beltran; András M Komáromy; Valerie L Dufour; Malgorzata Swider; Simone Iwabe; Alexander Sumaroka; Brian T Kendrick; Gordon Ruthel; Vince A Chiodo; Elise Héon; William W Hauswirth; Samuel G Jacobson; Gustavo D Aguirre Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Matthew E Braza; Jonathon Young; Thomas A Hammeke; Scott E Robison; Dennis P Han; Clinton C Warren; Joseph Carroll; Kimberly E Stepien Journal: BMJ Open Ophthalmol Date: 2018-11-24