Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Repair of the degenerate retina by photoreceptor transplantation

Open access
Barber, Amanda C., Hippert, Claire, Duran, Yanai, West, Emma L., Bainbridge, James W. B., Warre-Cornish, Katherine, Luhmann, Ulrich F. O., Lakowski, Jorn, Sowden, Jane C., Ali, Robin R., Pearson, Rachael A.·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Despite different aetiologies, age-related macular degeneration and most inherited retinal disorders culminate in the same final common pathway, the loss of photoreceptors. There are few treatments and none reverse the loss of vision. Photoreceptor replacement by transplantation is proposed as a broad treatment strategy applicable to all degenerations. Recently, we demonstrated restoration of vision following rod-photoreceptor transplantation into a mouse model of stationary night-blindness, raising the critical question of whether photoreceptor replacement is equally effective in different types and stages of degeneration. We present a comprehensive assessment of rod-photoreceptor transplantation across six murine models of inherited photoreceptor degeneration. Transplantation is feasible in all models examined but disease type has a major impact on outcome, as assessed both by the morphology and number of integrated rod-photoreceptors. Integration can increase ( Prph2 +/Δ307 ), decrease ( Crb1 rd8/rd8 , Gnat1 −/− , Rho −/− ), or remain constant ( PDE6β rd1/rd1 , Prph2 rd2/rd2 ) with disease progression, depending upon the gene defect, with no correlation with severity. Robust integration is possible even in late-stage disease. Glial scarring and outer limiting membrane integrity, features that change with degeneration, significantly affect transplanted photoreceptor integration. Combined breakdown of these barriers markedly increases integration in a model with an intact outer limiting membrane, strong gliotic response, and otherwise poor transplantation outcome ( Rho −/− ), leading to an eightfold increase in integration and restoration of visual function. Thus, it is possible to achieve robust integration across a broad range of inherited retinopathies. Moreover, transplantation outcome can be improved by administering appropriate, tailored manipulations of the recipient environment.

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.1212677110

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Barber, A. C., Hippert, C., Duran, Y., West, E. L., Bainbridge, J. W. B., Warre-Cornish, K., Luhmann, U. F. O., Lakowski, J., Sowden, J. C., Ali, R. R., & Pearson, R. A.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2012-12-17
Volume
110
Issue
1
Pages
354-359
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2117547777
Cited by
280
References
3
FWCI
8.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Repair of the degenerate retina by photoreceptor transplantation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1212677110
The paper
Barber, A. C., Hippert, C., Duran, Y., West, E. L., Bainbridge, J. W. B., Warre-Cornish, K., Luhmann, U. F. O., Lakowski, J., Sowden, J. C., Ali, R. R., & Pearson, R. A. (2013). Repair of the degenerate retina by photoreceptor transplantation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212677110

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.