Early Onset Ultrastructural and Functional Defects in RPE and Photoreceptors of a Stargardt-Like Macular Dystrophy (STGD3) Transgenic Mouse Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the interplay between photoreceptors expressing mutant ELOVL4 (responsible for Stargardt-like disease, STGD3) and RPE in the initial stages of retinal degeneration. METHODS: Using electron microscopy and electroretinogram (ERG), we assessed RPE and photoreceptor ultrastructure and function in transgenic ELOVL4 (TG1-2 line; TG) and wild-type (WT) littermates. Experiments were done at P30, 1 month before photoreceptor loss in TG and at P90, a time point with approximately 30% rod loss. To further elucidate the mechanism underlying our ultrastructural and functional results, we undertook Western blotting and immunohistochemistry of key proteins involved in phagocytosis of outer segments by RPE cells. RESULTS: Firstly, we showed that in TG mouse photoreceptors, endogenous ELOVL4 protein is not mislocalized in the presence of the mutated ELOVL4 protein. Secondly, we found evidence of RPE toxicity at P30, preceding any photoreceptor loss. Pathology in RPE cells was exacerbated at P90. Furthermore, higher proportions of phagosomes remained at the apical side of RPE cells. Subretinal lysosomal deposits were immunopositive for phagocytic proteins. Ultrastructural analysis of photoreceptor (rod) outer segments showed disrupted surface morphology consisting of disc spacing irregularities. Finally, rods and RPE exhibited signs of dysfunction as measured by the ERG a-wave leading edge (P30) and c-wave (P90), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of human mutant ELOVL4 in transgenic mouse photoreceptors leads to early outer segment disc pathology and RPE cytotoxicity. Defective processing of these abnormal discs by RPE cells ultimately may be responsible for outer segment truncation, photoreceptor death, and vision loss.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".