| Literature DB >> 34272513 |
Dorothy A Thompson1,2, Siân E Handley3,4, Robert H Henderson3,4, Oliver R Marmoy3,4, Paul Gissen5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (CLN2 Batten disease) is a rare, progressive neurodegenerative disease of childhood. The natural history of motor and language regression is used to monitor the efficacy of CNS treatments. Less is known about CLN2 retinopathy. Our aim is to elaborate the nature, age of onset, and symmetry of CLN2 retinopathy using visual electrophysiology and ophthalmic imaging. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 22 patients with genetically confirmed CLN2 disease; seventeen showing classical and five atypical disease. Flash electroretinograms (ERGs), flash and pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (VEPs), recorded from awake children were collated. Available fundus images were graded, optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfoveal thickness (CST) measured, and genotype, age, clinical vision assessment and motor language grades assembled.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34272513 PMCID: PMC8377094 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-021-01594-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eye (Lond) ISSN: 0950-222X Impact factor: 3.775
Tabulated result summary.
| ID | Age (months) | Nucleotide change | ERG grade (amp/fifth centile) | OCT CST µm | WCBS grade | Vision | CLN2 scale | Flash VEP 3/s | 30 Hz | PREV VEP | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diag | ERT | Test | Mutation 1 | Mutation 2 | RE + LE/2 | RE | LE | RE | LE | OCT | OPTOS | Vision | ML | #1 | #2 | VEP | Waveform | Chk width | |
| 1 | 49 | 52 | 52 | c.622C>T | c.1094G>A | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1 | F + F | 4 | y | y | Early 84 ms | 25 | ||||
| 2 | 46 | 47 | 47 | c.622C>T | c.509-1G>C | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 2 | F + F | 4 | y | PPR | y | Early 87 ms | 25 | |||
| 2#2 | 63 | c.622C>T | c.509-1G>C | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 4 | PPR | y | 81 ms | 50 | ||||||||
| 3 | 53 | 58 | 58 | c.622C>T | c.1678–1679 del | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.9 | F + F | 2 | PPR | PPR | y | 122 ms | 25 | ||||
| 3#2 | 68 | c.622C>T | c.1678–1679 del | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2 | PPR | Absent | bifid 74 ms 123 ms | 25 | ||||||||
| 13 | 53 | 54 | 54 | c509-1G>C | c17 + 1del likely path | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 4 | F + F | 4 | PPR | y | bifid 72 ms 126 ms | 12.5 | ||||
| 15 | 54 | 55 | 55 | c.509-1G>C | c.509-1G>C | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 4 | PPR | y | 102 ms | 6.25 | ||||||
| 15#2 | 67 | c.509-1G>C | c.509-1G>C | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 150b | 2 | 2 | PPR | y | 128 ms | 12.5 | ||||||
| 20 | 49 | 53 | 117 | c.509-1G>C | c.509-1G>C | nd | nd | nd | 50b | 30b | 5 | 0 | nd | nd | nd | ||||
| 6 | 53 | 55 | 84 | c.509-1G>C | c.509-1G>C | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1 | PPR | PPR | y | 109 ms | 25 | |||||
| 6#2 | 92 | c.509-1G>C | c.509-1G>C | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 50b | nd | 5 | 0 | PPR | y | Absent | >400 | |||||
| 7 | 49 | 70 | 108 | c.509-1G>C | c.509-1G>C | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 73 | nd | 5 | no F + F | 0 | Absent | Absent | nd | |||
| 8 | 27 | 47 | 82 | c.509-1G>C | c.509-1G>C | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 82b | nd | 5 | 5 | Fix | 4 | ?PPR | Absent | 92 ms | 100 | |
| 14 | 48 | 49 | 50 | c.509-1G>C | c1525C>T | 1.0 | nd | 1.0 | 4 | nd | nd | LE ERG only | |||||||
| 9 | 50 | 52 | 84 | c.1052C>T | c.1052C>T | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 52b | 40b | 5 | 5 | 3.8 CPD | 2 | PPR | Absent | 118 ms | 200 | |
| 19 | 45 | 46 | 75 | c.509-1G>C | c.622C>T | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 95b | nd | 5 | Reacts to light | 4 | nd | nd | nd | |||
| 18 | 47 | 52 | 65 | c.1266G>C | c.1266G>C | Declined flash stimulation | 2.9 CPD | 4 | nd | nd | 128 ms | 25 | |||||||
| 18#2 | 131 | c.1266G>C | c.1266G>C | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 80b | NPL | 1 | Absent | Absent | Absent | >400 | ||||||
| 17 | 41 | 43 | 104 | c.754_757 | c.1094G>A | Declined flash stimulation | 73 | 60 | 3/4 | F + F | 4 | nd | nd | Early 87 ms | 50 | ||||
| 4 | 55 | 56 | 93 | c89+5G>A | c.509-1G>C | 2.6 | 2.9 | 2.2 | F + F | 1 | PPR | PPR | nd | Early 65 ms | 6.25 | ||||
| 4#2 | 104 | c89+5G>A | c.509-1G>C | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 188 | 192 | 2/3 | 0 | PPR | y | Early 65 ms | 25 | |||||
| 21 | 15 | 21 | 65 | c89+5G>A | c.509-1G>C | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 210b | 205b | 1 | F + F | 6 | PPR | y | Early 88 ms | 6.25 | ||
| 22 | 51 | 52 | 65 | c379C>T | c.509-1G>C | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 160b | 170b | 2 | 1 | F + F | 2 | PPR | y | Early 60 ms | 25 | |
| 10a | 95 | 101 | 105 | c.622C>T | c511G>C | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 1 | 4 | y | y | Early 77 ms | 12.5 | |||||
| 11a | 129 | 130 | 134 | c.1340G>A | C509-1G>C | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 223 | 224 | 2 | 4 | 4 | PPR | y | bifid 97 ms 144 ms | 6.25 | ||
| 12a | 158 | 159 | 164 | c.1340G>A | C509-1G>C | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 180 | 189 | 1 | 3 | 4 | y | y | 139 ms | 6.25 | ||
| 5a | 161 | 180 | 209 | c.89+5G>C | c.1340G>A | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 147 | 145 | 2/3 | 2 | 0.2 LogMAR | 4 | y | PPR | y | 108 ms | 6.25 |
| 5a#2 | 225 | c.89+5G>C | c.1340G>A | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 131 | 135 | 2/3 | 4 | PPR | y | Early 99 ms | 6.25 | |||||
| 16a,b | 72 | NA | 73 | c.887 G>A | c.887G>A | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 197 | 206 | 1 | 1 | 0.02 LogMAR | 6 | ?PPR | PPR | y | 113 ms | 6.25 |
| 16a#2 | 120 | c.887G>A | c.887G>A | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 197 | 198 | 1 | 6 | PPR | y | 116 ms | 6.25 | |||||
Age (months): Ages in months are given for diagnosis (diag), first enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) and electrophysiology test (test).
Nucleotide change: common mutations c.509-1G>C and c.622C>T are shaded grey.
ERG grade is scored by dividing the measured amplitude for each response by the fifth centile reference limit. The indices for each response are then averaged. Broadly, 1 is borderline and below one is subnormal.
OCT CST: is the central subfoveal retinal thickness, b indicates Bioptigen, others Spectralis, nd not done.
WBCS is the Weill Cornell Batten Score (Kovacs et al. [26]) formerly ophthalmic severity score (Orlin et al. [25]). Range 1–5: 1 is normal and 5 is generalised retinal atrophy.
CLN2 scale is the motor language scale associated with the date of each test. Range 0–6: 0 is a severe disability and 6 is normal.
Flash VEP: #1 first test, #2 second test, PPR photo paroxysmal response, abn abnormal, y is present.
PREV VEP: ms is the latency of the major positive peaks. P100 reference limit with 95% CI is 90–112 ms (mean 101 ms).
Chk width: is the smallest check side length in minutes of an arc that produced a response with both eyes open (range 400′–6.25′).
Patient ID. aAre patients with atypical forms of CLN2. bIs not on ERT because of non-progressive disease at this stage. Sibling pairs are 7 & 8, 11 & 12, 4 & 21.
Fig. 1ERG data from children with CLN2 disease.
a Scatter plot of graded ERGs from RE and LE as a function of age for each of the five ERG responses. The grey region indicates subnormal amplitudes. b Venn diagram highlights the greater proportion of abnormal cone system ERGs 58–67% compared to rod system 25–27%. c Examples of each of the five ERG waveforms from two patients. Pt 7 (hom c.887 G>A) shows an attenuated atypical form of CLN2. Skin ERGs are noisy, (muscle artefact), but were within the normal reference range for amplitude and waveform at 73 m and follow-up at 120 m. Pt 5 (c.622 C>T, c.1678–1679 del) in contrast at first recording aged 58 m had subnormal cone ERGs but normal rod ERGs. At follow-up 10 months later there is loss of a detectable cone 30 Hz flicker ERG and the rod system ERGs begin to lose amplitude.
Fig. 2Averaged ERG grades, combined from RE and LE for all stimuli to provide a single comparable index for each patient, are displayed as a function of age.
The dotted reference line at 1 indicates borderline ERGs, values below this are subnormal amplitude. Circles indicate patients with classical CLN2 disease, boxes indicate those with atypical disease. Serial ERG data from seven patients are linked by lines to show the trajectory of ERG amplitude loss. This grade enabled comparison with available published ERG data produced by different techniques. These data are shown as X symbols. Weleber = 3 cases with traces described as proportions of mean, no genotype; Quagliati = 5 cases with values and fifth centile reference data against which the amplitudes were normalised, no genotype; Modrzejewski = 1 case with published traces graded cf Control traces, no genotype; Dozieres = 9 genetically diagnosed cases, ERGs tabulated with a binary classification abnormal or normal which was translated as 0.5 for abnormal and 1.5 for normal for purposes of graphing vs. age.
Fig. 3Examples of pattern and flash VEPs and flash ERGs recorded from patients with CLN2 disease.
a A column of pattern reversal VEPs recorded from Oz to mf reference to 50′ check widths are arrayed to display the early atypical positive-negative-positive configuration highlighted with a red arrow compared to the P100 (black arrow on the top trace). The grey vertical panel shows the normal latency reference limits with 95% CI. Individual patients ID next to each trace #1 and #2 denotes first and second recording. b Serial pattern VEPs to 50′ check widths for patient 3 are shown. At the first recording aged 57 m, a single positive pattern VEP waveform is noted with a recognisable P100 (black trace). The waveform is typical compared to a normal waveform shown in Fig. 4a. At the follow-up recording, 9 m later the reversal VEP is overwhelmed by a giant pattern-driven paroxysmal EEG activity c The photo-paroxsymal response (PPR) to flash stimulation can cause a giant spike and wave from the occipital electrodes to slow flash presentations 3/s. An early giant flash VEP due to the intrusion of PPR is shown from patient 4 aged 93 m for three different flash stimuli all presented 3/s. The most pronounced largest PPR is seen during cone system stimulation. The PPR is sufficient to confound the simultaneously recorded cone and mixed rod-cone ERGs. They have a prominent negative-going artefact (arrowed), either reflected from the PPR in the frontal region and/or with myoclonic periocular reaction. This gives the cone ERG an appearance of two peaks. The rod system b-wave is minimally affected. (The lower lid cheek skin ERG electrode was referred to as an outer canthus reference). At a follow-up recording 11 months later (Blue traces), the PPR is diminished and less complex. It interferes less with the skin ERGs which are evident and borderline normal. NB the flash VEP display scale is 100 µV the skin ERGs are shown on 10 µV scale.
Fig. 4Macular OCT and OPTOS FAF images.
a Examples of macular OCTs taken from the case series to show the structural evolution and grades of the maculopathy. b OCTs from patient 5 in the central panel highlight the atypical accumulation adjacent to the external limiting membrane. The perifoveal disruption of outer segments is also shown below. This did not have a functional consequence on VA or PERG. c OPTOS FAF images are arrayed from 3 patients who have a normal central thickness at the time of imaging but show foveal hyper FAF, suggesting this is an early sign of retinal dysfunction in CLN2.
Fig. 5Changes in OCT central subfoveal thickness with age and ERG score.
a OCT CSTs are plotted with age and compared with the right eye prediction interval data redrawn from Kovacs et al. 2020 [26]. GOSH patients with the classical disease are identified by filled symbols, those with the atypical disease with boxes. The red horizontal reference data lines represent ±3 SD of the CST expected for this age range published by Lee et al. 2015 [56]. The solid symbols are from patients with classical CLN2 disease and grey box symbols indicate patients with atypical disease. b The right eye OCT central retinal thickness is correlated with the average ERG score from the right eye. Shown with a linear regression line. (The Kendall correlation was 0.71, significant p 0.003). c The OCT CST plotted with cone ERG data shows a dichotomy of structure and function. Those with classical CLN2 disease who retain CST (filled symbols) have reduced retinal function. OCT images from 3 patients with classical CLN2 disease are shown in the panel. The middle macula image (OCT Bioptigen) in the panel (patient 15.) has retained the CST, but there is a marked drop out of the ellipsoid zone and the ERG score is subnormal.