Beyond Genetics: The Role of Metabolism in Photoreceptor Survival, Development and Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vision commences in the retina with rod and cone photoreceptors that detect and convert light to electrical signals. The irreversible loss of photoreceptors due to neurodegenerative disease leads to visual impairment and blindness. Interventions now in development include transplanting photoreceptors, committed photoreceptor precursors, or retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells, with the latter protecting photoreceptors from dying. However, introducing exogenous human cells in a clinical setting faces both regulatory and supply chain hurdles. Recent work has shown that abnormalities in central cell metabolism pathways are an underlying feature of most neurodegenerative disorders, including those in the retina. Reversal of key metabolic alterations to drive retinal repair thus represents a novel strategy to treat vision loss based on cell regeneration. Here, we review the connection between photoreceptor degeneration and alterations in cell metabolism, along with new insights into how metabolic reprogramming drives both retinal development and repair following damage. The potential impact of metabolic reprogramming on retinal regeneration is also discussed, specifically in the context of how metabolic switches drive both retinal development and the activation of retinal glial cells known as Müller glia. Müller glia display latent regenerative properties in teleost fish, however, their capacity to regenerate new photoreceptors has been lost in mammals. Thus, re-activating the regenerative properties of Müller glia in mammals represents an exciting new area that integrates research into developmental cues, central metabolism, disease mechanisms, and glial cell biology. In addition, we discuss this work in relation to the latest insights gleaned from other tissues (brain, muscle) and regenerative species (zebrafish).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".