Inherited Optic Neuropathies: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Camila Xu and Version 1 by Michael James Gilhooley.

Inherited optic neuropathies, including Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy (LHON) and Dominant Optic Atrophy (DOA), are monogenetic diseases with a final common pathway of mitochondrial dysfunction leading to retinal ganglion cell (RGC) death and ultimately loss of vision.

  • transcriptomics
  • RNA-seq
  • neuroprotection
  • DOA

1. Introduction

1.1. Optic Neuropathies

Optic neuropathies are among the most common causes of blindness in the working age population [1], with inherited forms (including Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy (LHON) [2] and Dominant Optic Atrophy (DOA)) affecting about 1 in 10,000 of the population [3,4,5]. In this review, we will present a brief introduction to these conditions and how the availability of powerful emerging techniques, including transcriptomics, are quickly revolutionizing both diagnosis and development of novel therapies with potential applications beyond the eye.

Optic neuropathies are among the most common causes of blindness in the working age population [1], with inherited forms (including Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy (LHON) [2] and Dominant Optic Atrophy (DOA)) affecting about 1 in 10,000 of the population [3][4][5]. In this review, we will present a brief introduction to these conditions and how the availability of powerful emerging techniques, including transcriptomics, are quickly revolutionizing both diagnosis and development of novel therapies with potential applications beyond the eye.

Vision is ultimately lost in both LHON and DOA as retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) die secondary to mitochondrial dysfunction [6]. This specific susceptibility of RGCs to such dysfunction is not completely understood. However, the relatively large metabolic demand for these specialized cells and their unique anatomy are thought to be important contributory factors. RGCs have long axonal segments which lack myelin throughout their intraocular course but gain a myelin sheath on exiting the eye beyond the lamina cribosa [7,8]. As the only nervous tissue visible

Vision is ultimately lost in both LHON and DOA as retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) die secondary to mitochondrial dysfunction [6]. This specific susceptibility of RGCs to such dysfunction is not completely understood. However, the relatively large metabolic demand for these specialized cells and their unique anatomy are thought to be important contributory factors. RGCs have long axonal segments which lack myelin throughout their intraocular course but gain a myelin sheath on exiting the eye beyond the lamina cribosa [7][8]. As the only nervous tissue visible

in vivo and with increasingly sophisticated cell culture techniques [9,10], RGCs present a powerful system in which to interrogate mitochondrial dysfunction and the pathways that ultimately lead to cell loss and disease development. Such dysfunction has been implicated in major neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease [11], Alzheimer’s disease [12], and other forms of dementia [13], but the polygenetic inheritance and environmental contribution to these common conditions are particularly challenging when investigating their pathogenesis.

and with increasingly sophisticated cell culture techniques [9][10], RGCs present a powerful system in which to interrogate mitochondrial dysfunction and the pathways that ultimately lead to cell loss and disease development. Such dysfunction has been implicated in major neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease [11], Alzheimer’s disease [12], and other forms of dementia [13], but the polygenetic inheritance and environmental contribution to these common conditions are particularly challenging when investigating their pathogenesis.

As monogenetic conditions where mitochondrial function is disturbed, both LHON and DOA can mitigate some of these challenges and act as useful model diseases of more complex neurodegenerative disease processes. LHON is a primary mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) disorder, with the majority of cases caused by one of three point mutations—namely, m.3460G>A in the

MT-ND1

gene, m.11778G>A in the

MT-ND4

gene, and m.14484T>C in the

MT-ND6 gene—all of which encode for essential subunits of mitochondrial complex I [3,7,14,15,16]. LHON is additionally interesting due to its predilection to manifest in males and its marked incomplete penetrance—both of which could perhaps have origins in transcriptomic differences.

gene—all of which encode for essential subunits of mitochondrial complex I [3][7][14][15][16]. LHON is additionally interesting due to its predilection to manifest in males and its marked incomplete penetrance—both of which could perhaps have origins in transcriptomic differences.

In comparison, DOA is nuclear-encoded mitochondrial optic neuropathy caused by mutations in the

OPA1

gene (3q28-q29), which encodes for a multimeric dynamin GTPase protein located within the mitochondrial inner membrane.

OPA1

subserves a number of functions, including the regulation of mitochondrial fusion, the stability of the mitochondrial respiratory chain complexes and mitochondrial biogenesis, the sequestration of pro-apoptotic cytochrome

c within the mitochondrial cristae, and mitochondrial turnover (mitophagy) [4,17,18,19,20].

within the mitochondrial cristae, and mitochondrial turnover (mitophagy) [4][17][18][19][20].

1.2. “-Omics” Technologies as Applied to Inherited Optic Neuropathies

Our understanding of mitochondrial biology and disease has advanced greatly over recent years, not least due to the development and maturation of “-omics” technologies. These can be defined as “high-throughput technologies capable of detecting differences in a multitude of molecular constituents in organisms [21]”, with those that represent the three strata of central biological dogma (gen

omics

, transcript

omics

, and prote

omics

) being prominent. These fields deal with the detection of differences in DNA sequences, gene transcription, and proteins within tissue. Additionally, particularly relevant to mitochondrial disease is the developing field of metabol

omics (centered on the comparison of levels of products of metabolism) [22,23] and lipid

(centered on the comparison of levels of products of metabolism) [22][23] and lipid

omics

[24].

Whilst these disciplines are linked by their comparative nature—experimental plans often involve the contrast of different conditions (e.g., control and “diseased” states, or between different cell types)—the emerging field of multi-omics (or vertical -

omics

) focuses on complimentary comparisons

across

domains (

Figure 1). For example, highlighting changes replicated across the transcriptome, the proteome and metabolome will carry particular significance [24,25], and this approach is already being used in mitochondrial research [26]. As these technologies and their complementary bioinformatic analysis techniques develop, the power of “-

). For example, highlighting changes replicated across the transcriptome, the proteome and metabolome will carry particular significance [24][25], and this approach is already being used in mitochondrial research [26]. As these technologies and their complementary bioinformatic analysis techniques develop, the power of “-

omics

” investigations is likely to increase.

Figure 1.

A schematic representing the processes of modeling and investigating inherited optic neuropathies using “-omics” methods. (

A

) Model diseases such as DOA and LHON can be powerful tools in which to investigate the effects of mitochondrial dysfunction. The study of patients with inherited optic neuropathies is often a two-way process: in one direction, the characterization of their phenotype and genotype allows the development of useful disease models (for example, cell -and animal-based). These provide an efficient environment in which to increase our understanding of underlying disease processes as well as a testing ground for novel therapies before their return in the opposite direction, back into patients. (

B

) Tissues from model systems can be investigated using used in multiple “-omics” techniques—in some cases, these can be performed simultaneously and analyzed in vertical “multi-omics” experiments (see text). ATACseq—Assay for Transposase Accessible Chromatin—a method for assessing which areas of the chromatin superstructure are open and so likely available for active in transcription, is an example of the rapidly expanding field of

epigenomics

. (

C

) Multiple transcriptomic techniques are available and have particular strength in different experimental situations. “Novel”: Novel techniques are emerging that will further the resolution of these techniquesm including those with abilities to sequence longer transcripts in one read and those that integrate temporal and spatial information regarding transcripts (see text). RNA-seq—RNA-sequencing; scRNA-seq—single-cell RNAseq; snRNAseq—single nucleus RNAseq. (

D

) Transcriptomic techniques gain power from the large quantity of data that they produce. This necessitates adequately designed bioinformatic pipelines that are tailored to the exact scientific question being asked in order to produce a list of candidate genes for further investigation back in model systems. (

E

) Model systems of diseases can include those based on cultured patient cells or be animals carrying pathogenic variants, leading to phenocopies of human disease. Samples from these models used in transcriptomic analysis can include tissue (such as retinas) or cell cultures. As many transcriptomic experiments compare expression between conditions (e.g., disease and control) to produce lists of differentially expressed genes, the further technical and functional validation of these can be performed back in model systems in preparation for therapeutic translation in patients (see text).

1.3. Transcriptomics

Specifically, “the transcriptome” refers to the RNA transcribed within a cell, or group of cells, often with a particular focus on mRNA (both coding and non-coding). Several methods to quantify mRNA have been developed (see below) and are applied to genetic eye diseases. For example, assessing transcribed features in a particular sample can be used to compare changes in gene expression either over time or between control and diseased states (such as optic neuropathies) [27]. Features showing differential expression may be implicated in the disease process, highlighting areas for further investigation to uncover aetiologic pathways, novel biomarkers, and therapeutic targets.

2. Transcriptomics in Inherited Optic Neuropathies

2.1. Applications of Transcriptomics in Optic Neuropathies

Several factors make transcriptomics a particularly suitable methodology for the investigation of optic neuropathies. Whilst the anatomy and physiology of the retina and optic nerve are relatively well understood compared with other areas of the central nervous system [28], our understanding of pathophysiology in these structures can be less comprehensive. This is particularly true for inherited optic neuropathies such as LHON and DOA, where the genomic determinant of the disease in many patients is readily identifiable as a single gene (monogenic disorder) [14,18,19]. However, less is known regarding how this translates into the clinical phenotype of RGC death as well as other as yet unexplained facets of these model diseases (such as the incomplete penetrance in LHON when the pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutation is present in the homoplastic state in both affected patients and carriers). Thus, this presents an unmet need to identify the novel pathways and genes involved to which comparative transcriptomics is particularly suited. Whilst direct access to RGCs and patient tissues is limited, cellular and mouse model systems [7,29,30] have developed in recent years into powerful platforms with which to perform transcriptomic studies (and, more importantly, validate and investigate their findings). For example,

Several factors make transcriptomics a particularly suitable methodology for the investigation of optic neuropathies. Whilst the anatomy and physiology of the retina and optic nerve are relatively well understood compared with other areas of the central nervous system [28], our understanding of pathophysiology in these structures can be less comprehensive. This is particularly true for inherited optic neuropathies such as LHON and DOA, where the genomic determinant of the disease in many patients is readily identifiable as a single gene (monogenic disorder) [14][18][19]. However, less is known regarding how this translates into the clinical phenotype of RGC death as well as other as yet unexplained facets of these model diseases (such as the incomplete penetrance in LHON when the pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutation is present in the homoplastic state in both affected patients and carriers). Thus, this presents an unmet need to identify the novel pathways and genes involved to which comparative transcriptomics is particularly suited. Whilst direct access to RGCs and patient tissues is limited, cellular and mouse model systems [7][29][30] have developed in recent years into powerful platforms with which to perform transcriptomic studies (and, more importantly, validate and investigate their findings). For example,

in vivo

neuro-retinal tissue can easily be visualized (if not directly sampled) at the cellular level with techniques such as optical coherence tomography (OCT), and there are well defined metrics of RGC function at the behavioral (acuity) [31], reflex (pupillary) [32], and electrophysiological levels [33]. To compliment this, induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) RGC models derived from LHON and DOA patient tissues have proved invaluable for molecular investigations [7].

2.2. Disadvantages of Transcriptomics in Optic Neuropathies

Despite the suitability of inherited optic neuropathy investigations, the limitations of transcriptomics must be borne in mind when considering data from such studies. In isolation, transcriptomics gives us no direct information on protein dynamics. The mRNA expression level of a particular gene may correspond to increased protein levels, increased protein turnover, or indeed changes to post translational protein modifications. Therefore, the validation of transcriptomic findings at the protein or functional level is required if conclusions are to be drawn regarding the downstream effects of mRNA changes. Planning this can present further challenges—for example, when comparing transcriptomes in conditions (such as optic neuropathies) with changes dramatic enough to lead to cell death, large numbers of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) are likely. Therefore, methods to prioritize which DEG to validate while minimizing bias have been developed, and these are discussed further below and reviewed elsewhere [34].

Whilst preparing tissue for transcriptomic studies, careful tissue handling is equally important in reducing bias, and indices of extracted RNA quality (such as RNA Integrity Number “RIN” [35]) can be used to assess this. Additionally, and especially in a highly cellular, complex tissue such as the retina, it is essential to ensure that the identity of cells undergoing processing is known (for example, photoreceptors and bipolar cells have an interdigitated synapse that can make them difficult to dissociate and isolate [36]. Additionally, the cells isolated must be viable. It is well established that the dissection of retina from mouse models requires the cutting of the optic nerve (and therefore the transection of RGC axons), so processing should be as expedient as possible to minimize the stress response recorded. Indeed, many of these limitations have been addressed as isolation methods have been developed.

References

  1. Liew, G.; Michaelides, M.; Bunce, C. A comparison of the causes of blindness certifications in England and Wales in working age adults (16–64 years), 1999–2000 with 2009–2010. BMJ Open 2014, 4, e004015.
  2. Newman, N.J.; Carelli, V.; Taiel, M.; Yu-Wai-Man, P. Visual Outcomes in Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy Patients with the m.11778G>A (MTND4) Mitochondrial DNA Mutation. J. Neuro-Ophthalmol. 2020, 40, 547–557.
  3. Yu-Wai-Man, P.; Griffiths, P.G.; Brown, D.T.; Howell, N.; Turnbull, D.M.; Chinnery, P.F. The Epidemiology of Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy in the North East of England. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2003, 72, 333–339.
  4. Yu-Wai-Man, P.; Griffiths, P.G.; Burke, A.; Sellar, P.W.; Clarke, M.P.; Gnanaraj, L.; Ah-Kine, D.; Hudson, G.; Czermin, B.; Taylor, R.W.; et al. The Prevalence and Natural History of Dominant Optic Atrophy Due to OPA1 Mutations. Ophthalmology 2010, 117, 1538–1546.e1.
  5. Yu-Wai-Man, P.; Griffiths, P.G.; Chinnery, P.F. Mitochondrial optic neuropathies—Disease mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2011, 30, 81–114.
  6. Carelli, V.; Ross-Cisneros, F.N.; Sadun, A.A. Mitochondrial dysfunction as a cause of optic neuropathies. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2004, 23, 53–89.
  7. Bahr, T.; Welburn, K.; Donnelly, J.; Bai, Y. Emerging model systems and treatment approaches for Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy: Challenges and opportunities. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA Mol. Basis Dis. 2020, 1866, 165743.
  8. Coussa, R.G.; Merat, P.; Levin, L.A. Propagation and Selectivity of Axonal Loss in Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–11.
  9. Gill, K.P.; Hung, S.S.C.; Sharov, A.; Lo, C.Y.; Needham, K.; Lidgerwood, G.E.; Jackson, S.; Crombie, D.E.; Nayagam, B.A.; Cook, A.L.; et al. Enriched retinal ganglion cells derived from human embryonic stem cells. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 30552.
  10. Jankauskaitė, E.; Bartnik, E.; Kodroń, A. Investigating Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy: Cell models and future perspectives. Mitochondrion 2017, 32, 19–26.
  11. Rani, L.; Mondal, A.C. Emerging concepts of mitochondrial dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease progression: Pathogenic and therapeutic implications. Mitochondrion 2020, 50, 25–34.
  12. Burté, F.; Carelli, V.; Chinnery, P.F.; Yu-Wai-Man, P. Disturbed mitochondrial dynamics and neurodegenerative disorders. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2015, 11, 11–24.
  13. Bannwarth, S.; Ait-El-Mkadem, S.; Chaussenot, A.; Genin, E.C.; Lacas-Gervais, S.; Fragaki, K.; Berg-Alonso, L.; Kageyama, Y.; Serre, V.; Moore, D.G.; et al. A mitochondrial origin for frontotemporal dementia and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis through CHCHD10 involvement. Brain 2014, 137, 2329–2345.
  14. Wallace, D.C.; Singh, G.; Lott, M.T.; Hodge, J.; Schurr, T.G.; Lezza, A.M.; Elsas, L.J.; Nikoskelainen, E.K. Mitochondrial DNA mutation associated with Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy. Science 1988, 242, 1427–1430.
  15. Zhuo, Y.; Luo, H.; Zhang, K. Leber hereditary optic neuropathy and oxidative stress. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 19882–19883.
  16. Wallace, D.C.; Lott, M.T. Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy: Exemplar of an mtDNA Disease. In Pharmacology of Mitochondria; Singh, H., Sheu, S.-S., Eds.; Springer International: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 339–376.
  17. Liao, C.; Ashley, N.; Diot, A.; Morten, K.; Phadwal, K.; Williams, A.; Fearnley, I.; Rosser, L.; Lowndes, J.; Fratter, C.; et al. Dysregulated mitophagy and mitochondrial organization in optic atrophy due to OPA1 mutations. Neurology 2017, 88, 131–142.
  18. Alexander, C.; Votruba, M.; Pesch, U.E.; Thiselton, D.L.; Mayer, S.; Moore, A.; Rodriguez, M.; Kellner, U.; Leo-Kottler, B.; Auburger, G.; et al. OPA1, encoding a dynamin-related GTPase, is mutated in autosomal dominant optic atrophy linked to chromosome 3q28. Nat. Genet. 2000, 26, 211–215.
  19. Delettre, C.; Lenaers, G.; Griffoin, J.-M.; Gigarel, N.; Lorenzo, C.; Belenguer, P.; Pelloquin, L.; Grosgeorge, J.; Turc-Carel, C.; Perret, E.; et al. Nuclear gene OPA1, encoding a mitochondrial dynamin-related protein, is mutated in dominant optic atrophy. Nat. Genet. 2000, 26, 207–210.
  20. Ham, M.; Han, J.; Osann, K.; Smith, M.; Kimonis, V. Meta-analysis of genotype-phenotype analysis of OPA1 mutations in autosomal dominant optic atrophy. Mitochondrion 2019, 46, 262–269.
  21. Rahman, J.; Rahman, S. Mitochondrial medicine in the omics era. Lancet 2018, 391, 2560–2574.
  22. Zhang, A.; Sun, H.; Yan, G.; Wang, P.; Wang, X. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics: Applications to biomarker and metabolic pathway research. Biomed. Chromatogr. 2016, 30, 7–12.
  23. Esterhuizen, K.; Van Der Westhuizen, F.H.; Louw, R. Metabolomics of mitochondrial disease. Mitochondrion 2017, 35, 97–110.
  24. Kappler, L.; Lehmann, R. Mass-spectrometric multi-omics linked to function—State-of-the-art investigations of mitochondria in systems medicine. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 119, 115635.
  25. Hasin, Y.; Seldin, M.; Lusis, A.J. Multi-omics approaches to disease. Genome Biol. 2017, 18, 1–15.
  26. Quirós, P.M.; Prado, M.; Zamboni, N.; D’Amico, D.; Williams, R.W.; Finley, D.; Gygi, S.P.; Auwerx, J. Multi-omics analysis identifies ATF4 as a key regulator of the mitochondrial stress response in mammals. J. Cell Biol. 2017, 216, 2027–2045.
  27. Owen, N.; Moosajee, M. RNA-sequencing in ophthalmology research: Considerations for experimental design and analysis. Ther. Adv. Ophthalmol. 2019, 11, 1–23.
  28. Masland, R.H. The Neuronal Organization of the Retina. Neuron 2012, 76, 266–280.
  29. Chen, J.; Riazifar, H.; Minxin, G.; Huang, T. Modeling autosomal dominant optic atrophy using induced pluripotent stem cells and identifying potential therapeutic targets. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2016, 7, 1–14.
  30. Davies, V.J.; Hollins, A.J.; Piechota, M.J.; Yip, W.; Davies, J.R.; White, K.E.; Nicols, P.P.; Boulton, M.E.; Votruba, M. OPA1 deficiency in a mouse model of autosomal dominant optic atrophy impairs mitochondrial morphology, optic nerve structure and visual function. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2007, 16, 1307–1318.
  31. Prusky, G.T.; West, P.W.; Douglas, R.M. Behavioral assessment of visual acuity in mice and rats. Vis. Res. 2000, 40, 2201–2209.
  32. Jagannath, A.; Hughes, S.; Abdelgany, A.; Pothecary, C.A.; Di Pretoro, S.; Pires, S.S.; Vachtsevanos, A.; Pilorz, V.; Brown, L.A.; Hossbach, M.; et al. Isoforms of Melanopsin Mediate Different Behavioral Responses to Light. Curr. Biol. 2015, 25, 2430–2434.
  33. Barnard, A.R.; Issa, P.C.; Perganta, G.; Williams, P.A.; Davies, V.J.; Sekaran, S.; Votruba, M.; MacLaren, R.E. Specific deficits in visual electrophysiology in a mouse model of dominant optic atrophy. Exp. Eye Res. 2011, 93, 771–777.
  34. Nguyen, T.-M.; Shafi, A.; Nguyen, T.; Draghici, S. Identifying significantly impacted pathways: A comprehensive review and assessment. Genome Biol. 2019, 20, 1–15.
  35. Schroeder, A.; Mueller, O.; Stocker, S.; Salowsky, R.; Leiber, M.; Gassmann, M.; Lightfoot, S.; Menzel, W.; Granzow, M.; Ragg, T. The RIN: An RNA integrity number for assigning integrity values to RNA measurements. BMC Mol. Biol. 2006, 7, 3.
  36. Gilhooley, M.J.; Hickey, D.G.; Hughes, S.; Hankins, M.W. Retinal bipolar cell gene changes in the rd1 model of inherited retinal degeneration. In Proceedings of ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract, Honolulu, HI, USA, 29 April 2018; Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Volume 59, 1007p.
More
ScholarVision Creations