Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Interaction between native and prosthetic visual responses in optogenetic visual restoration
Eleonora Carpentiero, Steven Hughes, Jessica Rodgers, Nermina Xhaferri, Sumit Biswas, Michael J. Gilhooley, Mark W. Hankins, Moritz Lindner
Eleonora Carpentiero, Steven Hughes, Jessica Rodgers, Nermina Xhaferri, Sumit Biswas, Michael J. Gilhooley, Mark W. Hankins, Moritz Lindner
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Neuroscience Ophthalmology

Interaction between native and prosthetic visual responses in optogenetic visual restoration

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Degenerative retinal disorders leading to irreversible photoreceptor death are a common cause of blindness. Optogenetic gene therapy aims to restore vision in affected individuals by introducing light-sensitive opsins into the surviving neurons of the inner retina. While up until now, the main focus of optogenetic therapy has been on terminally blind individuals, treating at stages where residual native vision is present could have several advantages. However, it is still unknown how residual native and optogenetic vision would interact if present at the same time. Using transgenic mice expressing the optogenetic tool ReaChR in ON-bipolar cells, we herein examine this interaction through electroretinography (ERG) and visually evoked potentials (VEP). We find that optogenetic responses show a peculiar ERG signature and are enhanced in retinas without photoreceptor loss. Conversely, native responses are dampened in the presence of ReaChR. Moreover, in VEP recordings, we find that optogenetic responses reach the cortex asynchronous to the native response. These findings should be taken into consideration when planning future clinical trials and may direct future preclinical research to optimize optogenetic approaches for visual restoration. The identified ERG signatures, moreover, may serve to track treatment efficiency in clinical trials.

Authors

Eleonora Carpentiero, Steven Hughes, Jessica Rodgers, Nermina Xhaferri, Sumit Biswas, Michael J. Gilhooley, Mark W. Hankins, Moritz Lindner

×

Figure 7

Light adapted VEP recordings.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Light adapted VEP recordings.
(A) Representative recordings from WT mice...
(A) Representative recordings from WT mice (gray) and ReaChR-expressing, nondegenerate littermates (dark red) obtained in response to a 100 cd × s/m2 flash stimulus on 30 cd/m2 background. Light adapted VEP amplitudes were low, and signal/noise ratios sufficient for further analysis could only be obtained in 9 of 10 recordings from ReaChR-expressing, nondegenerate mice. Note an additional, early deflection (N1o, red arrow) could be observed in all but 1 recording from ReaChR-expressing, nondegenerate mice but not in those from WT mice not expressing ReaChR. Black arrow points on the N1 wave. (B) Summary statistics for the implicit times of VEP N1 and N1o waves. Median time to N1 peak was 55.25 (IQR: 52.62–58.69) ms while N1o peak occurred at 27.12 (IQR: 25.38–28.50) ms. Student’s t test (2-tailed) was used to test for significance between groups.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts