Optogenetics and Targeted Gene Therapy for Retinal Diseases: Unravelling the Fundamentals, Applications, and Future Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a common aim of restoring physiological function of defective cells, optogenetics and targeted gene therapies have shown great clinical potential and novelty in the branch of personalized medicine and inherited retinal diseases (IRDs). The basis of optogenetics aims to bypass defective photoreceptors by introducing opsins with light-sensing capabilities. In contrast, targeted gene therapies, such as methods based on CRISPR-Cas9 and RNA interference with noncoding RNAs (i.e., microRNA, small interfering RNA, short hairpin RNA), consists of inducing normal gene or protein expression into affected cells. Having partially leveraged the challenges limiting their prompt introduction into the clinical practice (i.e., engineering, cell or tissue delivery capabilities), it is crucial to deepen the fields of knowledge applied to optogenetics and targeted gene therapy. The aim of this in-depth and novel literature review is to explain the fundamentals and applications of optogenetics and targeted gene therapies, while providing decision-making arguments for ophthalmologists. First, we review the biomolecular principles and engineering steps involved in optogenetics and the targeted gene therapies mentioned above by bringing a focus on the specific vectors and molecules for cell signalization. The importance of vector choice and engineering methods are discussed. Second, we summarize the ongoing clinical trials and most recent discoveries for optogenetics and targeted gene therapies for IRDs. Finally, we then discuss the limits and current challenges of each novel therapy. We aim to provide for the first time scientific-based explanations for clinicians to justify the specificity of each therapy for one disease, which can help improve clinical decision-making tasks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".