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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |