Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Functional photoreceptor loss revealed with adaptive optics: An alternate cause of color blindness

Carroll, Joseph, Neitz, Maureen, Hofer, Heidi, Neitz, Jay, Williams, David R.·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

There is enormous variation in the X-linked L/M (long/middle wavelength sensitive) gene array underlying “normal” color vision in humans. This variability has been shown to underlie individual variation in color matching behavior. Recently, red–green color blindness has also been shown to be associated with distinctly different genotypes. This has opened the possibility that there may be important phenotypic differences within classically defined groups of color blind individuals. Here, adaptive optics retinal imaging has revealed a mechanism for producing dichromatic color vision in which the expression of a mutant cone photopigment gene leads to the loss of the entire corresponding class of cone photoreceptor cells. Previously, the theory that common forms of inherited color blindness could be caused by the loss of photoreceptor cells had been discounted. We confirm that remarkably, this loss of one-third of the cones does not impair any aspect of vision other than color.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0401440101

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. 10.1113/jphysiol.1996.sp021310 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/0042-6989(89)90140-5 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/0042-6989(91)90207-L · DOI
  4. Kremers, J., Usui, T., Scholl, H. P. N. & Sharpe, L. T. (1999) Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 40, 920-930.10102289
  5. 10.1126/science.2937147 · DOI
  6. 10.1126/science.3485310 · DOI
  7. Deeb, S. S., Lindsey, D. T., Hibiya, Y., Sanocki, E., Winderickx, J., Teller, D. Y. & Motulsky, A. G. (1992) Am. J. Hum. Genet. 51, 687-700.1415215
  8. 10.1093/hmg/11.1.23 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1073/pnas.0637437100 · DOI
  10. Neitz M. Carroll J. Renner A. Knau H. Werner J. S. & Neitz J. (2004) Vis. Neurosci. in press.
  11. 10.1038/ng0792-251 · DOI
  12. 10.1002/1520-6378(2001)26:1 <::AID-COL23>3.0.CO;2-I · DOI
  13. 10.1073/pnas.85.22.8459 · DOI
  14. 10.1126/science.2788922 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Kazmi, M. A., Sakmar, T. P. & Ostrer, H. (1997) Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 38, 1074-1081.9152227
  16. Liang, J., Williams, D. R. & Miller, D. (1997) J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2882-2892.
  17. 10.1038/17383 · DOI
  18. 10.1002/1520-6378(2001)26:1 <::AID-COL51>3.0.CO;2-L · DOI
  19. 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00008-9 · DOI
  20. 10.1364/JOSAA.17.000499 · DOI
  21. 10.1364/JOSAA.13.000641 · DOI
  22. 10.1364/OE.8.000631 · DOI
  23. 10.1167/iovs.03-0094 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00043-8 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/0042-6989(68)90040-0 · DOI
  26. 10.1085/jgp.62.4.430 · DOI
  27. 10.1002/cne.902920402 · DOI
  28. 10.3109/02713689409042406 · DOI
  29. Jacobs G. H. & Calderone J. B. (1997) in John Dalton's Colour Vision Legacy eds. Dickerson C. Murray I. & Carden D. (Taylor & Francis London) pp. 47-54.
  30. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-23-10053.1998 · DOI
  31. Carroll, J., Neitz, M. & Neitz, J. (2002) J. Vis. 2, 531-542.12678637
  32. 10.1038/356433a0 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/0896-6273(94)90320-4 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00371-4 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/0042-6989(94)00306-8 · DOI
  36. 10.1038/360677a0 · DOI
  37. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-07-02251.1996 · DOI
  38. Bowmaker J. K. Parry J. W. L. & Mollon J. D. (2003) in Normal & Defective Colour Vision eds. Mollon J. D. Pokorny J. & Knoblauch K. (Oxford Univ. Press New York) pp. 39-50. · DOI
  39. 10.1016/0042-6989(64)90034-3 · DOI
  40. Pokorny J. Smith V. C. & Wesner M. F. (1991) in From Pigments to Perception: Advances in Understanding Visual Processes eds. Valberg A. & Lee B. B. (Plenum New York) pp. 23-34.
  41. 10.1016/0042-6989(88)90185-X · DOI
  42. 10.1016/S0161-6420(84)34247-6 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/0042-6989(86)90143-4 · DOI
  44. 10.1073/pnas.022629799 · DOI
  45. Williams D. R. (1990) in Advances in Photoreception: Proceedings of a Symposium on Frontiers of Visual Science (Natl. Acad. Press Washington DC) pp. 135-148.
  46. 10.1016/0042-6989(93)90144-L · DOI
  47. 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00225-1 · DOI
  48. 10.1073/pnas.95.12.7103 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/S1350-9462(97)00012-8 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/0002-9394(89)90431-5 · DOI
  51. Kellner, U., Sadowski, B., Zrenner, E. & Foerster, M. H. (1995) Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 36, 2381-2387.7591627
  52. 10.1076/ceyr.22.3.221.5514 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/0042-6989(94)E0066-T · DOI
  54. 10.1038/nn817 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Carroll, J., Neitz, M., Hofer, H., Neitz, J., & Williams, D. R.
Affiliations
Center for Visual Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0270; and Departments of Ophthalmology and Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2004-05-17
Volume
101
Issue
22
Pages
8461-8466
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
Cited by
191
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review