Katie M Litts1, Michalis Georgiou2,3, Christopher S Langlo4, Emily J Patterson1, Rebecca R Mastey1, Angelos Kalitzeos2,3, Rachel E Linderman4, Byron L Lam5, Gerald A Fishman6, Mark E Pennesi7, Christine N Kay8, William W Hauswirth9, Michel Michaelides2,3, Joseph Carroll1,4. 1. Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin , Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Moorfields Eye Hospital , London, UK. 3. UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London , London, UK. 4. Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin , Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 5. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami , Miami, Florida, USA. 6. Pangere Center for Inherited Retinal Diseases, The Chicago Lighthouse , Chicago, Illinois, USA. 7. Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University , Portland, Oregon, USA. 8. Vitreoretinal Associates , Gainesville, Florida, USA. 9. Ophthalmology, University of Florida , Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the interocular symmetry of foveal cone topography in achromatopsia (ACHM) using non-confocal split-detection adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO). Methods: Split-detector AOSLO images of the foveal cone mosaic were acquired from both eyes of 26 subjects (mean age 24.3 years; range 8-44 years, 14 females) with genetically confirmed CNGA3- or CNGB3-associated ACHM. Cones were identified within a manually delineated rod-free zone. Peak cone density (PCD) was determined using an 80 × 80 μm sampling window within the rod-free zone. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of inter-cell distance (ICD) were calculated to derive the coefficient of variation (CV). Cone density difference maps were generated to compare cone topography between eyes. Results: PCD (mean ± SD) was 17,530 ± 9,614 cones/mm2 and 17,638 ± 9,753 cones/mm2 for right and left eyes, respectively (p = .677, Wilcoxon test). The mean (± SD) for ICD was 9.05 ± 2.55 µm and 9.24 ± 2.55 µm for right and left eyes, respectively (p = .410, paired t-test). The mean (± SD) for CV of ICD was 0.16 ± 0.03 µm and 0.16 ± 0.04 µm for right and left eyes, respectively (p = .562, paired t-test). Cone density maps demonstrated that cone topography of the ACHM fovea is non-uniform with local variations in cone density between eyes. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the interocular symmetry of the foveal cone mosaic (both density and packing) in ACHM. As cone topography can differ between eyes of a subject, PCD does not completely describe the foveal cone mosaic in ACHM. Nonetheless, these findings are of value in longitudinal monitoring of patients during treatment trials and further suggest that both eyes of a given subject may have similar therapeutic potential and non-study eye can be used as a control.
Purpose: To determine the interocular symmetry of foveal cone topography in achromatopsia (ACHM) using non-confocal split-detection adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO). Methods: Split-detector AOSLO images of the foveal cone mosaic were acquired from both eyes of 26 subjects (mean age 24.3 years; range 8-44 years, 14 females) with genetically confirmed CNGA3- or CNGB3-associated ACHM. Cones were identified within a manually delineated rod-free zone. Peak cone density (PCD) was determined using an 80 × 80 μm sampling window within the rod-free zone. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of inter-cell distance (ICD) were calculated to derive the coefficient of variation (CV). Cone density difference maps were generated to compare cone topography between eyes. Results:PCD (mean ± SD) was 17,530 ± 9,614 cones/mm2 and 17,638 ± 9,753 cones/mm2 for right and left eyes, respectively (p = .677, Wilcoxon test). The mean (± SD) for ICD was 9.05 ± 2.55 µm and 9.24 ± 2.55 µm for right and left eyes, respectively (p = .410, paired t-test). The mean (± SD) for CV of ICD was 0.16 ± 0.03 µm and 0.16 ± 0.04 µm for right and left eyes, respectively (p = .562, paired t-test). Cone density maps demonstrated that cone topography of the ACHM fovea is non-uniform with local variations in cone density between eyes. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the interocular symmetry of the foveal cone mosaic (both density and packing) in ACHM. As cone topography can differ between eyes of a subject, PCD does not completely describe the foveal cone mosaic in ACHM. Nonetheless, these findings are of value in longitudinal monitoring of patients during treatment trials and further suggest that both eyes of a given subject may have similar therapeutic potential and non-study eye can be used as a control.
Authors: Melissa A Wilk; Brandon M Wilk; Christopher S Langlo; Robert F Cooper; Joseph Carroll Journal: Vision Res Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Mortada A Abozaid; Christopher S Langlo; Adam M Dubis; Michel Michaelides; Sergey Tarima; Joseph Carroll Journal: Adv Exp Med Biol Date: 2016 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: S Kohl; T Marx; I Giddings; H Jägle; S G Jacobson; E Apfelstedt-Sylla; E Zrenner; L T Sharpe; B Wissinger Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Jonathan Aboshiha; Vy Luong; Jill Cowing; Adam M Dubis; James W Bainbridge; Robin R Ali; Andrew R Webster; Anthony T Moore; Frederick W Fitzke; Michel Michaelides Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: David Cunefare; Christopher S Langlo; Emily J Patterson; Sarah Blau; Alfredo Dubra; Joseph Carroll; Sina Farsiu Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 3.562
Authors: Christopher S Langlo; Laura R Erker; Maria Parker; Emily J Patterson; Brian P Higgins; Phyllis Summerfelt; Moataz M Razeen; Frederick T Collison; Gerald A Fishman; Christine N Kay; Jing Zhang; Richard G Weleber; Paul Yang; Mark E Pennesi; Byron L Lam; Jeffrey D Chulay; Alfredo Dubra; William W Hauswirth; David J Wilson; Joseph Carroll Journal: Retina Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Nashila Hirji; Michalis Georgiou; Angelos Kalitzeos; James W Bainbridge; Neruban Kumaran; Jonathan Aboshiha; Joseph Carroll; Michel Michaelides Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Venki Sundaram; Caroline Wilde; Jonathan Aboshiha; Jill Cowing; Colin Han; Christopher S Langlo; Ravinder Chana; Alice E Davidson; Panagiotis I Sergouniotis; James W Bainbridge; Robin R Ali; Alfredo Dubra; Gary Rubin; Andrew R Webster; Anthony T Moore; Marko Nardini; Joseph Carroll; Michel Michaelides Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-10-20 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Katie M Litts; Erica N Woertz; Michalis Georgiou; Emily J Patterson; Byron L Lam; Gerald A Fishman; Mark E Pennesi; Christine N Kay; William W Hauswirth; Michel Michaelides; Joseph Carroll Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.048
Authors: Jenna A Cava; Mitchell T Allphin; Rebecca R Mastey; Mina Gaffney; Rachel E Linderman; Robert F Cooper; Joseph Carroll Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Katie M Litts; Erica N Woertz; Niamh Wynne; Brian P Brooks; Alicia Chacon; Thomas B Connor; Deborah Costakos; Alina Dumitrescu; Arlene V Drack; Gerald A Fishman; William W Hauswirth; Christine N Kay; Byron L Lam; Michel Michaelides; Mark E Pennesi; Kimberly E Stepien; Sasha Strul; C Gail Summers; Joseph Carroll Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 3.048
Authors: Katie M Litts; Mali Okada; Tjebo F C Heeren; Angelos Kalitzeos; Vincent Rocco; Rebecca R Mastey; Navjit Singh; Thomas Kane; Melissa Kasilian; Marcus Fruttiger; Michel Michaelides; Joseph Carroll; Catherine Egan Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 3.048
Authors: Michalis Georgiou; Navjit Singh; Thomas Kane; Serena Zaman; Nashila Hirji; Jonathan Aboshiha; Neruban Kumaran; Angelos Kalitzeos; Joseph Carroll; Richard G Weleber; Michel Michaelides Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 4.925