Single-base substitutions in the CHM promoter as a cause of choroideremia.

Although over 150 unique mutations affecting the coding sequence of CHM have been identified in patients with the X-linked chorioretinal disease choroideremia (CHM), no regulatory mutations have been reported, and indeed the promoter has not been defined. Here, we describe two independent families affected by CHM bearing a mutation outside the gene's coding region at position c.-98: C>A and C>T, which segregated with the disease. The male proband of family 1 was found to lack CHM mRNA and its gene product Rab escort protein 1, whereas whole-genome sequencing of an affected male in family 2 excluded the involvement of any other known retinal genes. Both mutations abrogated luciferase activity when inserted into a reporter construct, and by further employing the luciferase reporter system to assay sequences 5' to the gene, we identified the CHM promoter as the region encompassing nucleotides c.-119 to c.-76. These findings suggest that the CHM promoter region should be examined in patients with CHM who lack coding sequence mutations, and reveals, for the first time, features of the gene's regulation.

Reliability of a Manual Procedure for Marking the EZ Endpoint Location in Patients with Retinitis Pigmentosa.

PURPOSE: We developed and evaluated a training procedure for marking the endpoints of the ellipsoid zone (EZ), also known as the inner segment/outer segment (IS/OS) border, on frequency domain optical coherence tomography (fdOCT) scans from patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP). METHODS: A manual for marking EZ endpoints was developed and used to train 2 inexperienced graders. After training, an experienced grader and the 2 trained graders marked the endpoints on fdOCT horizontal line scans through the macula from 45 patients with RP. They marked the endpoints on these same scans again 1 month later. RESULTS: Intragrader agreement was excellent. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.99, the average difference of endpoint locations (19.6 µm) was close to 0 µm, and the 95% limits were between -284 and 323 µm, approximately ±1.1°. Intergrader agreement also was excellent. The ICC values were 0.98 (time 1) and 0.97 (time 2), the average difference among graders was close to zero, and the 95% limits of these differences was less than 350 µm, approximately 1.2°, for both test times. CONCLUSIONS: While automated algorithms are becoming increasingly accurate, EZ endpoints still have to be verified manually and corrected when necessary. With training, the inter- and intragrader agreement of manually marked endpoints is excellent. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: For clinical studies, the EZ endpoints can be marked by hand if a training procedure, including a manual, is used. The endpoint confidence intervals, well under ±2.0°, are considerably smaller than the 6° spacing for the typically used static visual field.