2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-1045-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A clinical study of patients with novel CDHR1 genotypes associated with late-onset macular dystrophy

Abstract: Purpose To describe the clinical and electrophysiological features of adult-onset macular dystrophy, due to novel combinations of CDHR1 alleles, and compare the associated phenotypes with previous reports. Methods The clinical records of patients with macular dystrophy and biallelic variants in CDHR1 were reviewed. Data analysed included best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), fundus images: autofluorescence (AF) and optical coherence tomography (OCT); full field electroretinography (ERG) and pattern ERG (PERG). … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This was identified in individuals homozygous for the c.783G>A variant, common in European populations (mean allele frequency of 0.49%) who presented with reduced visual acuity, difficulty in reading, glare, poor contrast and metamorphopsia (Charbel Issa et al, 2019). The symptom complex appeared similar in individuals with different combinations of CDHR1 alleles (Ba-Abbad et al, 2020). Typically, this group does not report nyctalopia (Charbel Issa et al, 2019) although this may be the case if a hypomorphic variant exists in trans with a more severe variant.…”
Section: Symptomsmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This was identified in individuals homozygous for the c.783G>A variant, common in European populations (mean allele frequency of 0.49%) who presented with reduced visual acuity, difficulty in reading, glare, poor contrast and metamorphopsia (Charbel Issa et al, 2019). The symptom complex appeared similar in individuals with different combinations of CDHR1 alleles (Ba-Abbad et al, 2020). Typically, this group does not report nyctalopia (Charbel Issa et al, 2019) although this may be the case if a hypomorphic variant exists in trans with a more severe variant.…”
Section: Symptomsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Visual acuity in this group is typically well preserved in at least one eye until later life, in contrast to individuals with biallelic null variants in CDHR1. Moreover, relative preservation of foveal cones may result in retention of a central island of retinal tissue which, when lost, results in a rapid decline in visual acuity (Ba-Abbad et al, 2020, Charbel Issa et al, 2019.…”
Section: Symptomsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cadherin-1 was shown to interact with MMP9. A variant of CDHR1, another member of the cadherin superfamily that is specific to photoreceptors, was reportedly associated with inherited retinal dystrophies [ 54 , 55 ] and is a possible target for further scrutiny. Other interacting partners of MMP9 included fellow members of the MMP family such as MMP1, -2, -3 and -14, where links with retinopathies have already been discussed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We read with interest the series of patients described by Ba-Abbad and colleagues. 1 Whilst biallelic truncating CDHR1 variants result in cone-rod or rod-cone dystrophiesconsistent with the Cdhr1 -/knockout mouse 2 -it is intriguing that certain biallelic splice or missense variants in CDHR1 may result in late-onset macular dystrophy.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…c.783G>ACDHR1 appears to be the most common CDHR1 variant associated with late-onset macular dystrophy, based on mean allele frequency. 1,5 Indeed, when hypomorphic 45 variants are included, CDHR1 was amongst the more common causes of macular and cone-or cone-rod dystrophy in one large series. 6 Although isolated macular dystrophy appears to be the most common phenotype in c.783G>ACDHR1 homozygotes, 5 peripheral retinal degeneration has been reported, 7 suggesting the influence of unknown modifiers which may result in rod photoreceptor degeneration instead of only macular 50 3 involvement.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%