Cargando…

A systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration

During inherited retinal degenerations (IRDs), vision is lost due to photoreceptor cell death; however, a range of optogenetic tools have been shown to restore light responses in animal models. Restored response characteristics vary between tools and the neuronal cell population to which they are de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gilhooley, Michael J., Lindner, Moritz, Palumaa, Teele, Hughes, Steven, Peirson, Stuart N., Hankins, Mark W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8956963/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35402632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omtm.2022.03.003
_version_ 1784676668679389184
author Gilhooley, Michael J.
Lindner, Moritz
Palumaa, Teele
Hughes, Steven
Peirson, Stuart N.
Hankins, Mark W.
author_facet Gilhooley, Michael J.
Lindner, Moritz
Palumaa, Teele
Hughes, Steven
Peirson, Stuart N.
Hankins, Mark W.
author_sort Gilhooley, Michael J.
collection PubMed
description During inherited retinal degenerations (IRDs), vision is lost due to photoreceptor cell death; however, a range of optogenetic tools have been shown to restore light responses in animal models. Restored response characteristics vary between tools and the neuronal cell population to which they are delivered: the interplay between these is complex, but targeting upstream neurons (such as retinal bipolar cells) may provide functional benefit by retaining intraretinal signal processing. In this study, our aim was to compare two optogenetic tools: mammalian melanopsin (hOPN4) and microbial red-shifted channelrhodopsin (ReaChR) expressed within two subpopulations of surviving cells in a degenerate retina. Intravitreal adeno-associated viral vectors and mouse models utilising the Cre/lox system restricted expression to populations dominated by bipolar cells or retinal ganglion cells and was compared with non-targeted delivery using the chicken beta actin (CBA) promoter. In summary, we found bipolar-targeted optogenetic tools produced faster kinetics and flatter intensity-response relationships compared with non-targeted or retinal-ganglion-cell-targeted hOPN4. Hence, optogenetic tools of both mammalian and microbial origins show advantages when targeted to bipolar cells. This demonstrates the advantage of bipolar-cell-targeted optogenetics for vision restoration in IRDs. We therefore developed a bipolar-cell-specific gene delivery system employing a compressed promoter with the potential for clinical translation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8956963
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89569632022-04-07 A systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration Gilhooley, Michael J. Lindner, Moritz Palumaa, Teele Hughes, Steven Peirson, Stuart N. Hankins, Mark W. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev Original Article During inherited retinal degenerations (IRDs), vision is lost due to photoreceptor cell death; however, a range of optogenetic tools have been shown to restore light responses in animal models. Restored response characteristics vary between tools and the neuronal cell population to which they are delivered: the interplay between these is complex, but targeting upstream neurons (such as retinal bipolar cells) may provide functional benefit by retaining intraretinal signal processing. In this study, our aim was to compare two optogenetic tools: mammalian melanopsin (hOPN4) and microbial red-shifted channelrhodopsin (ReaChR) expressed within two subpopulations of surviving cells in a degenerate retina. Intravitreal adeno-associated viral vectors and mouse models utilising the Cre/lox system restricted expression to populations dominated by bipolar cells or retinal ganglion cells and was compared with non-targeted delivery using the chicken beta actin (CBA) promoter. In summary, we found bipolar-targeted optogenetic tools produced faster kinetics and flatter intensity-response relationships compared with non-targeted or retinal-ganglion-cell-targeted hOPN4. Hence, optogenetic tools of both mammalian and microbial origins show advantages when targeted to bipolar cells. This demonstrates the advantage of bipolar-cell-targeted optogenetics for vision restoration in IRDs. We therefore developed a bipolar-cell-specific gene delivery system employing a compressed promoter with the potential for clinical translation. American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy 2022-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8956963/ /pubmed/35402632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omtm.2022.03.003 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Gilhooley, Michael J.
Lindner, Moritz
Palumaa, Teele
Hughes, Steven
Peirson, Stuart N.
Hankins, Mark W.
A systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration
title A systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration
title_full A systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration
title_fullStr A systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration
title_full_unstemmed A systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration
title_short A systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration
title_sort systematic comparison of optogenetic approaches to visual restoration
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8956963/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35402632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omtm.2022.03.003
work_keys_str_mv AT gilhooleymichaelj asystematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT lindnermoritz asystematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT palumaateele asystematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT hughessteven asystematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT peirsonstuartn asystematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT hankinsmarkw asystematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT gilhooleymichaelj systematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT lindnermoritz systematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT palumaateele systematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT hughessteven systematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT peirsonstuartn systematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration
AT hankinsmarkw systematiccomparisonofoptogeneticapproachestovisualrestoration