MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetics of Leber congenital amaurosis

2011· article· en· W2047296951 on OpenAlexaff
A. den Hollander, Ronald Roepman, R. Koenekoop, Fpm Cremers

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill Genome Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRPE65GUCY2DBiologyGeneticsRetinitis pigmentosaGeneGenetic heterogeneityJoubert syndromeCandidate geneBioinformaticsGenetic enhancementPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose To give an overview of our current knowledge of the genetic causes of Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA). Methods Current literature on the genetic causes of LCA and the function of the defective gene products will be reviewed. In addition therapeutic options for the various genetic subtypes will be discussed. Results Linkage analysis, homozygosity mapping and candidate gene analysis facilitated the identification of 15 genes mutated in patients with LCA, which together explain approximately 70% of the cases. Several of these genes have also been implicated in other non‐syndromic or syndromic retinal diseases, such as retinitis pigmentosa and Joubert syndrome, respectively. CEP290, GUCY2D and CRB1 are the most frequently mutated LCA genes; one intronic CEP290 mutation (p.Cys998X) is found in 20% of LCA patients from north‐western Europe, although this frequency is lower in other populations. The LCA genes encode proteins with a wide variety of retinal functions, such as photoreceptor morphogenesis, phototransduction, vitamin A cycling and intra‐photoreceptor ciliary transport processes. Rodent, avian and canine models for LCA have been successfully corrected employing adeno‐associated virus or lentivirus‐based gene therapy. Moreover, phase 1 clinical trials have been carried out in humans with RPE65 deficiencies. In addition, a phase 1 clinical trial with a retinoid compound has been initiated in LCA patients with RPE65 and LRAT mutations. Conclusion Future LCA research will focus on the identification of the remaining causal genes, the elucidation of the molecular mechanisms of disease in the retina, and the development of gene therapy approaches for different genetic subtypes of LCA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OphthalmologicaSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207