Electrophysiological and Pupillometric Abnormalities in PROM1 Cone–Rod Dystrophy

Abstract

PurposeTo compare electrophysiological and pupillometric responses in subjects with cone–rod dystrophy due to autosomal recessive (AR) PROM1 mutations.MethodsFour subjects with AR PROM1 dystrophy and 10 visually normal, age-similar controls participated in this study. Full-field, light- and dark-adapted electroretinograms (ERGs) were obtained using conventional techniques. Full-field, light- and dark-adapted measures of the pupillary light reflex (PLR; pupil constriction elicited by a flash of light) were obtained across a range of stimulus luminance using long- and short-wavelength light. Pupil size as a function of stimulus luminance was described using Naka–Rushton functions to derive Pmax (maximum response) and s (pupil response sensitivity).ResultsLight-adapted ERGs were non-detectable in all four PROM1 subjects, whereas dark-adapted ERGs were non-detectable in three subjects and markedly attenuated in the fourth. By contrast, each PROM1 subject had light- and dark-adapted PLRs. Pmax ranged from normal to slightly attenuated under all conditions. Light-adapted s was generally normal, with the exception of two subjects who had abnormal s for the long-wavelength stimulus. Dark adapted s was abnormal for each PROM1 subject for the long-wavelength stimulus and ranged from the upper limit of normal to substantially abnormal for the short-wavelength stimulus.ConclusionsERG and PLR comparison showed an unanticipated dichotomy: ERGs were generally non-detectable, whereas PLRs were normal for all PROM1 subjects under select conditions. Differences between the measures may be attributed to distinct spatiotemporal summation/gain characteristics.Translational RelevanceThese data highlight the potential usefulness of pupillometry in cases where the ERG is non-detectable.