Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Sep 23;20(9):e0332446. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0332446

Identification of coexisting Mfrprd6 and Pde6brd10 mutations causing spontaneous retinal detachment in commercially available rd6 mice

Asaka Lee Shiozawa 1,2,#, Maika Hosoi Kobayashi 1, Yusuke Shiozawa 2, Yasuhiro Ikeda 3, Yoshitaka Miyagawa 4, Fumiki Okamoto 1, Mashito Sakai 4, Takashi Okada 5, Tsutomu Igarashi 4,6,*,#
Editor: Tatsuya Inoue7
PMCID: PMC12456819  PMID: 40986557

Abstract

Purpose

The rd6 mouse model, characterized by retinal degeneration due to an Mfrp mutation, has been widely studied. However, we identified a subset of rd6 mice that developed severe non-rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (rd6-RD), suggesting the presence of additional genetic factors. This study aimed to characterize the retinal phenotype of rd6-RD mice and identify potential causative genetic mutations.

Methods

We performed optical coherence tomography, fundus imaging, electroretinography, and histological analysis to compare retinal structures and functions between rd6, rd6-RD, and C57BL/6J mice. Whole-genome sequencing was conducted to identify potential mutations associated with the retinal detachment phenotype.

Results

Optical coherence tomography revealed retinal detachment in rd6-RD mice as early as 4 weeks old, with complete loss of the outer nuclear layer by 6 weeks. Fundus examination at 11 weeks showed pale fundi and narrowed, whitened retinal vessels in rd6-RD mice, distinct from rd6 mice. On electroretinography, rd6-RD mice displayed significantly diminished a- and b-wave amplitudes, with no detectable responses by 10 weeks. Histological analysis confirmed severe outer retinal degeneration and disappearance of the outer layers in rd6-RD mice. Whole-genome sequencing identified a missense R560C mutation in Pde6b, corresponding to the Pde6brd10 mutation, in rd6-RD mice.

Conclusions

A subset of rd6 mice exhibited severe retinal detachment and outer retinal degeneration, distinct from the previously characterized Mfrp-related phenotype. The identification of the Pde6brd10 mutation suggests that these mice possess a dual-mutant genotype (Mfrprd6 and Pde6brd10), exacerbating retinal degeneration. These findings highlight the importance of genetic verification in commercially available mouse models and provide new insights into the genetic complexity of inherited retinal degenerations.

Introduction

Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) is a clinically and genetically heterogeneous group of inherited retinal disorders characterized by diffuse progressive dysfunction of rod photoreceptors, accompanied by degeneration of cone photoreceptors and the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) [1]. Visual impairment typically manifests as night blindness and progressive visual field loss. The prevalence of RP ranges from 1:3000–1:5000 [2,3]. Effective treatment remains lacking and disease progression to blindness is currently inevitable.

In recent years, advances in the understanding of the genetic basis of RP have led to the development of various animal models [4]. Among these, the rd6 mouse is a naturally occurring model of autosomal recessive retinal degeneration, with slower disease progression compared to other models. This phenotype is caused by a 4-bp deletion in a splice donor site in Mfrp [5,6], a gene implicated in regulating the lipidome and transcription necessary for photoreceptor function [7,8]. Degeneration begins at 3–4 weeks of age and progresses slowly over approximately 16 months, affecting both rod and cone cells and causing gradual photoreceptor loss. The rd6 mouse model provides a valuable tool for studying the mechanisms underlying retinal degeneration and for developing potential therapies for this devastating condition [8,9]. Moreover, Mfrp mutations in humans have been associated with microphthalmia, and cystic macular detachment, in addition to Mfrp-associated retinal dystrophy [10].

In this study, we observed a subset of rd6 mice exhibiting early-onset retinal detachment, a feature not commonly reported in typical rd6 mice. To investigate the underlying causes, we compared rd6 mice showing retinal detachment (rd6-RD) to regular rd6 mice, with the aim of identifying factors contributing to this phenotype.

Methods

Animal husbandry

B6.C3Ga-Mfrprd6/J (rd6) mice [5,6] were obtained from Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME), while C57BL/6J mice were purchased from CLEA Japan (Tokyo, Japan) as controls. Mice were maintained under a 14-h/10-h light/dark cycle at a constant 25°C with ad libitum access to food and water. All animal procedures were approved by the Experimental Ethical Review Committee of Nippon Medical School (approval nos. H28-049 and 2021−024) and adhered to the ARVO Statement for the Use of Animals in Ophthalmic and Vision Research. Mice were treated with an intraperitoneal administration of a combination of ketamine (Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and xylazine (Bayer Medical, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) at 100 and 10 mg/kg body weight, respectively. Exsanguination was performed under deep anesthesia induced by ketamine/xylazine as the method of euthanasia.

Fundus examination

Color fundus images were obtained using a GENESIS-Df handheld fundus camera (Kowa, Aichi, Japan) with a 90D lens following anesthesia and mydriasis. Imaging was performed at 11 weeks of age.

Imaging with OCT

OCT was conducted as described in our previous study [9]. Briefly, images were acquired using a Cirrus HD-OCT Model 4000 (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) with a customized 90D lens adaptor. Image resolution was 500 pixels (height) × 750 pixels (width). Average outer retinal thickness (between the outer plexiform layer and RPE) was measured at 200 pixels from the optic nerve head using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Inc., San Jose, CA) and GIMP 2 (https://www.gimp.org/). C57BL/6J (n = 8), rd6 (n = 12), and rd6-RD (n = 8) eyes were analyzed at postnatal weeks 4, 6, and 11.

Electroretinography (ERG)

Visual function was assessed via full-field scotopic ERG as previously described [11]. Mice were dark-adapted overnight and anesthetized with intraperitoneal injection of a ketamine/xylazine cocktail. Dark-adapted ERG responses were recorded using a hemisphere full-field stimulator for rodents (MAYO Corporation, Aichi, Japan), LS-W photostimulator (MAYO Corporation), and PowerLab 2/26 (ADInstruments, Sydney, Australia) as an A/D converter with Bio Amp ML132 amplifiers (ADInstruments). ERG was performed at 5 and 10 weeks of age using stimulation intensities of 0.02 and 2 cd·s/m2.

Histopathology

Mice were anesthetized and perfused with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), followed by 4% paraformaldehyde in 0.1 M phosphate buffer. Eyes were enucleated, the anterior segments were removed, and the remaining eye cups were post-fixed for two days in 4% paraformaldehyde at 4°C. Samples were then dehydrated, cleared in xylene, and embedded in paraffin. Sections (4-µm thick) were cut along the vertical meridian through the optic nerve head using a microtome and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Images were captured using a BX60 microscope (Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Retinal thickness was measured in an area 500 µm from the optic disc, with measurements taken from three different sections and analyzed using Photoshop (Adobe Inc., San Jose, CA) and GIMP 2 (https://www.gimp.org/).

Genetic analysis

Deep sequencing.

All 18 exons of Prkcq were amplified via polymerase chain reaction using primers containing a NotI linker (S1 Table). Pooled polymerase chain reaction products were purified, digested with NotI, and ligated. Libraries were constructed using the NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep Kit (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA). Sequencing was conducted with an Illumina MiSeq platform using a 150-bp paired-end protocol.

Whole-genome sequencing.

Genomic DNA (100 ng) was processed using the TruSeq Nano DNA Library Preparation Kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA) and sequenced on a NovaSeq platform with a 150-bp paired-end protocol. Sequencing reads were aligned to the mm10 reference genome using Isaac aligner [12]. Variants were identified using Isaac Variant Caller and filtered based on genomic annotations from SnpEff (version 4.1) developed by Pablo Cingolani. The detailed protocol is provided in the S1 File.

Statistical analysis

All results are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean. Comparisons between control and experimental groups were performed using One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference (Tukey’s HSD) test. Statistical analysis was conducted using R version 4.2.2 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), with values of p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

Retinal detachments observed in rd6 mice using OCT imaging

First, all mice used in this study were genotyped for Mfrprd6, which confirmed the presence of the homozygous Mfrprd6 mutation. In C57BL/6J mice, all retinal layers were clearly distinguishable (Fig 1a1c), with a well-defined ellipsoid zone (EZ) line. In contrast, rd6 mice displayed an indistinct EZ line, although the outer nuclear layer (ONL) remained visible (Fig 1d1f). Among rd6 mice, some exhibited retinal detachment as early as 4 weeks of age, accompanied by a significantly thinned ONL (Fig 2a). By 6 weeks, retinal detachment had progressed and the ONL was no longer detectable (Fig 2b). In this study, we classified mice with confirmed retinal detachment by 6 weeks as the retinal detachment group (rd6-RD). At 11 weeks, retinal detachment became more extensive (Fig 2c).

Fig 1. OCT of the retina in C57BL/6J and rd6 mice.

Fig 1

OCT performed at 4 weeks (W) (a), 6W (b), and 11W (c) in C57BL/6J mice, and at 4W (d), 6W (e), and 11W (f) in rd6 mice. In C57BL/6J mice, the ellipsoid zone (EZ) line is clearly observed (a–c, arrow). In rd6 mice, the EZ line appears indistinct (d–f, arrow), but the outer nuclear layer (ONL) remains visible (d–f, arrowhead). ONH: optic nerve head.

Fig 2. OCT of the retina in rd6-RD mice.

Fig 2

OCT performed at 4W (a), 6W (b), and 11W (c) in rd6-RD mice, which developed retinal detachment. Magnified regions are indicated by squares (d–f). Retinal detachment is observed as early as 4 weeks (d), with a markedly thin ONL (a, arrow). By 6 weeks, retinal detachment has expanded (b, between arrows) and the ONL is no longer detectable (b, arrowhead). By 11 weeks, retinal detachment has further progressed (f). ONH: optic nerve head.

Severe thinning of the outer retinal layers in rd6-RD mice

A comparison of magnified retinal images revealed significant thinning of the outer retinal layers in rd6-RD mice (Fig 3a). The relative thickness of the outer retinal layer was quantified among groups (S2 Table). Setting the mean value for C57BL/6J controls (n = 8) as 1, relative thicknesses for rd6 mice (n = 12) were 0.739 ± 0.014 at 4 weeks, 0.725 ± 0.012 at 6 weeks, and 0.661 ± 0.008 at 11 weeks. In contrast, rd6-RD mice (n = 8) exhibited a value of 0.226 ± 0.015 at 4 weeks, with complete outer retinal loss thereafter (Fig 3b). Raw images of OCT are shown in S2 Fig.

Fig 3. Magnified OCT and relative outer retinal thickness in rd6, rd6-RD, and C57BL/6J mice.

Fig 3

(a) Magnified OCT images of the retina in rd6, rd6-RD, and C57BL/6J mice. Double arrows indicate the outer retinal layer. (b) Relative outer retinal thickness in rd6 (n = 12), rd6-RD (n = 8), and C57BL/6J (n = 8) mice. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. **: p < 0.01 (One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test).

Fundoscopic abnormalities in rd6-RD mice

To further characterize the phenotype, color fundus images were captured at 11 weeks of age. Consistent with previous reports [5], rd6 mice exhibited multiple white spots of uniform size and shape (Fig 4b). However, while similar white spots were observed in rd6-RD mice, the fundi appeared pale and retinal vessels were narrowed and whitened, unlike in rd6 mice (Fig 4c).

Fig 4. Fundus images of rd6, rd6-RD, and C57BL/6J mice.

Fig 4

Fundus images captured at 11 weeks old. Multiple white spots of uniform size and shape (b) are seen in rd6 mice, consistent with previous reports. Similarly, rd6-RD mice (c) display white spots, but also exhibit pale fundi and narrowed, whitened retinal vessels, unlike rd6 mice (c, arrow).

Severely diminished ERG responses in rd6-RD mice

To evaluate visual function, ERG recordings were obtained from C57BL/6J (n = 8), rd6 (n = 12), and rd6-RD (n = 16) mice (S2 Table). While rd6 mice exhibited significantly smaller a- and b-wave amplitudes compared to C57BL/6J controls, rd6-RD mice demonstrated the weakest responses at 5 weeks, with no detectable signals at 10 weeks under both dim and strong light intensities (Fig 5).

Fig 5. ERG response in rd6, rd6-RD, and C57BL/6J mice.

Fig 5

To assess retinal function, scotopic ERG is performed to measure rod responses and mixed rod-cone responses under 0.02 cd·s/m2 and 2 cd·s/m2 stimuli at 5W (a) and 10W (b). Under both dim and strong light intensities, rd6-RD mice exhibit the weakest responses at 5 W among the three groups and no detectable signals at 10 W (c). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. **: p < 0.01 (One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test).

Histological analysis reveals severe outer retinal degeneration in rd6-RD mice

To further assess the pathological condition of rd6-RD, paraffin-embedded retinal sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin. The ONL of rd6 mice was significantly thinner than that of wild-type mice, but the outer retina of rd6-RD was drastically reduced, with no identifiable outer layers under the microscope (Fig 6a6c). Mean outer retinal thickness was 86.5 ± 6.44 µm in C57BL/6J controls, 51.8 ± 2.2 µm in rd6 mice, and only 6.63 ± 0.74 µm in rd6-RD mice (S2 Table).

Fig 6. Histological analysis and outer retinal thickness in rd6, rd6-RD, and C57BL/6J mice.

Fig 6

(a) Histological section of the posterior eye. Quantitative comparison of outer retinal thickness among rd6, rd6-RD, and C57BL/6J mice. Arrows indicate retinal detachment. (b) Magnified retinal section from each group. (c) The outer retinal layer is significantly thinner in rd6 mice than in C57BL/6J mice, while the outer layer has completely disappeared in rd6-RD mice. Data are presented as mean ± SEM (S2 Table). **: p < 0.01 (One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test). Scale bars: 200 µm in (a); 50 µm in (b).

Identification of the rd10 mutation through whole-genome sequencing

Given the severity of retinal degeneration observed in rd6-RD mice, we hypothesized the presence of an additional genetic mutation beyond Mfrp mutation. We first sequenced all the exons of Prkcq, of which mutations were known to be associated with retinal detachment [13]. A comparison between a mouse exhibiting retinal detachment (237; Mouse identification number) and its unaffected littermate (236) revealed no mutations in Prkcq.

Next, whole-genome sequencing was performed on rd6-RD (with confirmed retinal detachment) and rd6 (without retinal detachment) mice to identify potential genetic variants. The analysis focused on a single family in which the father (294), four affected sons (408, 409, 410, 411), and one affected daughter (381) exhibited retinal detachment, whereas the mother (367), two unaffected sons (407, 412), and one unaffected daughter (382) did not (Fig 7a).

Fig 7. Identification of the rd10 mutation via whole-genome sequencing.

Fig 7

(a) Pedigree of rd6 mice selected for whole-genome sequencing analysis. Males are represented by squares, and females by circles. Black-filled symbols indicate rd6 mice with retinal detachment. (b) Flowchart of variant filtering. RD(+): rd6 mice with retinal detachment; RD(-): rd6 mice without retinal detachment.

The mean coverage of whole-genome sequencing was 30.8× with 89.5% of the entire genome analyzed with ≥20 independent reads on average (S1Fig). In total, 176,432 variants were identified. We hypothesized two genetic models of inheritance:

  1. rd6 mice are heterozygous, whereas rd6-RD mice are homozygous for the mutation.

  2. rd6 mice are wild-type, whereas rd6-RD mice are heterozygous.

Sixteen variants fit the first inheritance pattern (homozygous mutation in rd6-RD), and 49 variants fit the second pattern (heterozygous mutation in rd6-RD). None of the variants fitting the second pattern were protein-coding (Fig 7b). Among the 16 variants fitting the first pattern, 2 were protein-coding, 10 were intronic, and 4 were intergenic (Fig 7b). Notably, one of the two protein-coding variants was a missense mutation in Pde6b (c.1678C > T, p.R560C) corresponding to the known Pde6brd10 mutation (Fig 7b). In mice, missense mutations in exon 13 of Pde6b are reported to cause RP [4].

To confirm whether these rd10 mutations were also present in other individuals with retinal detachment, a total of eighteen mice were genotyped and phenotyped. Of these, eight had retinal detachment and carried the Pde6 rd10/rd10 mutation. The other ten individuals that did not develop retinal detachment had heterozygous mutations (S3 Table).

Discussion

This study identified a subset of rd6 mice that developed non-rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and severe outer retinal degeneration. Retinal detachment was observed by 6 weeks of age, with significant fundoscopic abnormalities, particularly pale vessels, distinguishing rd6-RD from standard rd6 mice.

Previous studies have linked Mfrp mutations to extreme hyperopia in both humans and mice [8]. In humans, MFRP deficiency is associated with shortened axial length (15.4–16.3 mm, compared to a population average of 23.5 mm), consistent with the role of the RPE in the regulation of ocular growth [14]. In normal mice, the eyeballs exhibit rapid growth involving elongation of the axis length between 3 and 6 weeks of age [15]. However, it is possible that the eyes of rd6-RD mice fail to undergo this development, resulting in localized slippage which may harm the vulnerable outer layer and promote retinal detachment. Although axial length was not measured in the present study, future investigations should specifically address this factor.

Previous studies have demonstrated that Mfrp deficiency impairs the development and maintenance of photoreceptor outer segments via RPE dysfunction [16] and causes RPE atrophy and consequent photoreceptor degeneration [17]. Moreover, recent biochemical analysis revealed that Mfrp functions as a molecular hub in the apical membrane of RPE cells, coordinating lipid homeostasis and protein trafficking [18].

Genetic analysis of rd10 mice has shown that a missense mutation in exon 13 of Pde6b disrupts rod photoreceptor function, leading to retinal degeneration [19]. Histologically, rd10 mice exhibit photoreceptor degeneration by 3 weeks and near-complete outer retinal loss by 7 weeks. Previous reviews have detailed the mechanisms underlying phototransduction failure and photoreceptor cell death in rd10 mice [20] and recent comparative studies have demonstrated that the rd10 mutation induces protein mislocalization and instability, leading to cGMP-mediated cell death [21]. In this study, rd6-RD mice were found to harbor both the Mfrp mutation, which is associated with impaired RPE function and defective photoreceptor outer segment phagocytosis, and the Pde6b mutation, which causes rapid photoreceptor degeneration due to impaired phototransduction. The combination of these genetic defects may lead to marked structural instability of the outer retina, disruption of the outer limiting membrane, and weakening of adhesion between the neural retina and the RPE. Moreover, accelerated photoreceptor cell death in rd6-RD mice could promote extracellular matrix remodeling and microglial activation, further compromising retinal integrity. These molecular and cellular alterations may act synergistically to facilitate the development of non-rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in this model.

According to previous transcriptome analyses and public expression databases [22], both Mfrp and Pde6b exhibit retina-enriched expression, although they are predominantly localized to different retinal cell types. MFRP is expressed mainly in the RPE and ciliary body [16], whereas PDE6B is expressed specifically in rod photoreceptors, where it plays an essential role in phototransduction [20]. Despite these differences in cell-type localization, transcriptome studies of retinal degenerative models have reported that loss-of-function mutations in either gene can lead to downstream dysregulation of common pathways, including photoreceptor survival, oxidative stress responses, and inflammation-related signaling [23,24]. Therefore, while the upstream expression sites differ, there is overlap in the secondary gene expression changes observed in degenerating retina due to MFRP or PDE6B dysfunction.

Fundoscopic imaging of rd10 mice has also demonstrated retinal vascular sclerosis at 4 weeks, a feature also observed in rd6-RD mice. ERG responses in rd10 mice consistently decline sharply by 3 weeks and disappear by 2 months, paralleling the rapid loss of ERG signals in rd6-RD by 5 weeks.

Finally, genetic screening revealed that rd6-RD mice harbored the Pde6brd10 mutation, which has not previously been reported in standard rd6 strains. Notably, commercial suppliers such as Jackson Laboratory frequently distribute mouse strains carrying spontaneous mutations (e.g., Pde6brd1, Crb1rd8, Gnat2cpfl3) [25], highlighting the importance of genetic verification when utilizing these models.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Mean coverage by whole-genome sequencing of eight mice.

Genomic fractions analyzed by the indicated coverage are shown by colors.

(PDF)

pone.0332446.s001.pdf (51.4KB, pdf)
S2 Fig. Raw images of OCT.

(PDF)

pone.0332446.s002.pdf (391.2KB, pdf)
S1 Table. List of primers used for PCR amplification prior to deep sequencing.

(PDF)

pone.0332446.s003.pdf (20.6KB, pdf)
S2 Table. List of values used to build graphs.

(XLSX)

pone.0332446.s004.xlsx (23.1KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. Confirming phenotype-genotype correlation in another cohort of rd6 mice used in this study.

(XLSX)

pone.0332446.s005.xlsx (10.2KB, xlsx)
S1 File. Supplementary methods.

(DOCX)

pone.0332446.s006.docx (15.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We are deeply grateful to Dr. Shuhei Kameya for his generous support, expert advice, and extensive knowledge regarding the rd6 mouse, which greatly contributed to this study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (c) (24K09301) from MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), a research grant from Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Teika Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and a research grant from Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. The funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

References

  • 1.Hartong DT, Berson EL, Dryja TP. Retinitis pigmentosa. Lancet. 2006;368(9549):1795–809. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69740-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bunker CH, Berson EL, Bromley WC, Hayes RP, Roderick TH. Prevalence of retinitis pigmentosa in Maine. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;97(3):357–65. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(84)90636-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hayakawa M, Fujiki K, Kanai A, Matsumura M, Honda Y, Sakaue H, et al. Multicenter genetic study of retinitis pigmentosa in Japan: II. Prevalence of autosomal recessive retinitis pigmentosa. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 1997;41(1):7–11. doi: 10.1016/s0021-5155(96)00019-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chang B, Hawes NL, Hurd RE, Davisson MT, Nusinowitz S, Heckenlively JR. Retinal degeneration mutants in the mouse. Vision Res. 2002;42(4):517–25. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(01)00146-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hawes NL, Chang B, Hageman GS, Nusinowitz S, Nishina PM, Schneider BS, et al. Retinal degeneration 6 (rd6): a new mouse model for human retinitis punctata albescens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(10):3149–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kameya S, Hawes NL, Chang B, Heckenlively JR, Naggert JK, Nishina PM. Mfrp, a gene encoding a frizzled related protein, is mutated in the mouse retinal degeneration 6. Hum Mol Genet. 2002;11(16):1879–86. doi: 10.1093/hmg/11.16.1879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sluch VM, Banks A, Li H, Crowley MA, Davis V, Xiang C, et al. ADIPOR1 is essential for vision and its RPE expression is lost in the Mfrprd6 mouse. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):14339. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-32579-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Velez G, Tsang SH, Tsai Y-T, Hsu C-W, Gore A, Abdelhakim AH, et al. Gene Therapy Restores Mfrp and Corrects Axial Eye Length. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):16151. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16275-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Igarashi T, Ohsawa I, Kobayashi M, Miyazaki K, Igarashi T, Kameya S, et al. Drinking hydrogen water improves photoreceptor structure and function in retinal degeneration 6 mice. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):13610. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-17903-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dinculescu A, Estreicher J, Zenteno JC, Aleman TS, Schwartz SB, Huang WC, et al. Gene therapy for retinitis pigmentosa caused by MFRP mutations: human phenotype and preliminary proof of concept. Hum Gene Ther. 2012;23(4):367–76. doi: 10.1089/hum.2011.169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shiozawa AL, Igarashi T, Kobayashi M, Nakamoto K, Kameya S, Fujishita S, et al. Tyrosine triple mutated AAV2-BDNF gene therapy in an inner retinal injury model induced by intravitreal injection of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA). Mol Vis. 2020;26:409–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Raczy C, Petrovski R, Saunders CT, Chorny I, Kruglyak S, Margulies EH, et al. Isaac: ultra-fast whole-genome secondary analysis on Illumina sequencing platforms. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(16):2041–3. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt314 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ji X, Liu Y, Hurd R, Wang J, Fitzmaurice B, Nishina PM, et al. Retinal Pigment Epithelium Atrophy 1 (rpea1): A New Mouse Model With Retinal Detachment Caused by a Disruption of Protein Kinase C, θ. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(3):877–88. doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-17495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rymer J, Wildsoet CF. The role of the retinal pigment epithelium in eye growth regulation and myopia: a review. Vis Neurosci. 2005;22(3):251–61. doi: 10.1017/S0952523805223015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tkatchenko TV, Shen Y, Tkatchenko AV. Analysis of postnatal eye development in the mouse with high-resolution small animal magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(1):21–7. doi: 10.1167/iovs.08-2767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Won J, Smith RS, Peachey NS, Wu J, Hicks WL, Naggert JK, et al. Membrane frizzled-related protein is necessary for the normal development and maintenance of photoreceptor outer segments. Vis Neurosci. 2008;25(4):563–74. doi: 10.1017/S0952523808080723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fogerty J, Besharse JC. 174delG mutation in mouse MFRP causes photoreceptor degeneration and RPE atrophy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(10):7256–66. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tworak A, Smidak R, Rodrigues Menezes C, Du SW, Suh S, Choi EH, et al. MFRP is a molecular hub that organizes the apical membrane of RPE cells by engaging in interactions with specific proteins and lipids. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025;122(16):e2425523122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2425523122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gargini C, Terzibasi E, Mazzoni F, Strettoi E. Retinal organization in the retinal degeneration 10 (rd10) mutant mouse: a morphological and ERG study. J Comp Neurol. 2007;500(2):222–38. doi: 10.1002/cne.21144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Han J, Dinculescu A, Dai X, Du W, Smith WC, Pang J. Review: the history and role of naturally occurring mouse models with Pde6b mutations. Mol Vis. 2013;19:2579–89. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chirinskaite AV, Rotov AY, Ermolaeva ME, Tkachenko LA, Vaganova AN, Danilov LG, et al. Does Background Matter? A Comparative Characterization of Mouse Models of Autosomal Retinitis Pigmentosa rd1 and Pde6b-KO. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(24):17180. doi: 10.3390/ijms242417180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bryan JM, Fufa TD, Bharti K, Brooks BP, Hufnagel RB, McGaughey DM. Identifying core biological processes distinguishing human eye tissues with precise systems-level gene expression analyses and weighted correlation networks. Hum Mol Genet. 2018;27(19):3325–39. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddy239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mustafi D, Kevany BM, Bai X, Golczak M, Adams MD, Wynshaw-Boris A, et al. Transcriptome analysis reveals rod/cone photoreceptor specific signatures across mammalian retinas. Hum Mol Genet. 2016;25(20):4376–88. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddw268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Parapuram SK, Cojocaru RI, Chang JR, Khanna R, Brooks M, Othman M, et al. Distinct signature of altered homeostasis in aging rod photoreceptors: implications for retinal diseases. PLoS One. 2010;5(11):e13885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013885 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chang B. Mouse models for studies of retinal degeneration and diseases. Methods Mol Biol. 2013;935:27–39. doi: 10.1007/978-1-62703-080-9_2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tatsuya Inoue

1 Jul 2025

PONE-D-25-22608Identification of coexisting Mfrprd6 and Pde6brd10 mutations causing spontaneous retinal detachment in commercially available rd6 micePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Igarashi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 15 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tatsuya Inoue

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study provides valuable insights, but there are concerns regarding the results.

The results section does not directly mention electroretinography (ERG) or histopathology in rd10 mice, but the discussion section does mention ERG and histopathology in rd10 mice. Based on the results of whole genome sequencing, etc., does this mean that all rd6-RD mice have the Pde6 rd10/rd10 mutation?

Reviewer #2: When working with spontaneously occurring animal models, it is essential to remain alert to the possibility of additional pathogenic mutations beyond those already reported. This manuscript underscores the previously unrecognized presence of the rd10 mutation in commercially available rd6 mice, delivering an important cautionary message to researchers who rely on this model. Both the experimental design and the overall presentation are clear and persuasive.

My primary concern is that the conclusion—that severe retinal degeneration and retinal detachment in the rd6RD line arise from a combination of rd6 and rd10 mutations—is based solely on short-read whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data from a single mouse family. Because the Pde6b (c.1678C>T, p.R560C) mutation can be readily verified by Sanger sequencing, expanding the analysis to a larger cohort of animals would greatly strengthen the evidence. In addition, since rd10 mice are commercially available, crossing them with rd6 mice lacking the Pde6b mutation would test whether the rd6RD phenotype is truly reproducible, further enhancing the robustness of the conclusions.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 23;20(9):e0332446. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0332446.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Jul 2025

Journal Requirements:

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: According to manuscript body formatting guidelines, we checked and created our manuscript.

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

Response: According to the experiments involving animals, we added the sentence. (1) methods of sacrifice; We added “Exsanguination was performed under deep anesthesia induced by ketamine/xylazine as the method of euthanasia.” in Animal husbandry. (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia; We added “Mice were treated with an intraperitoneal administration of a combination of ketamine (Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and xylazine (Bayer Medical, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) at 100 and 10 mg/kg body weight, respectively.” in Animal husbandry. (3) efforts to alleviate suffering; To ensure ethical approval and adherence to guidelines, the approval number from the institutional animal care and use committee and the name of the applicable guidelines are provided in the Animal husbandry section.

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

Response: All funding-related information has been deleted from the manuscript text.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

Response: The values used to generate the graphs in Fig. 3b, Fig. 5c, and Fig. 6c are summarized in a list (S2 Table). We have added a title to S2 Table in the Supporting Information.

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Response: We have prepared a file containing the raw data used for Figure 3a (as well as Figures 1 and 2), which is provided as S2 Fig. A title for S2 Fig has been added in the Supporting Information.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: We have corrected the reference list and confirmed that it is complete and accurate.

Reviewer #1: This study provides valuable insights, but there are concerns regarding the results.

The results section does not directly mention electroretinography (ERG) or histopathology in rd10 mice, but the discussion section does mention ERG and histopathology in rd10 mice. Based on the results of whole genome sequencing, etc., does this mean that all rd6-RD mice have the Pde6 rd10/rd10 mutation?

Response: Thank you for your question. In this study, we did not perform analyses on rd10 mice; therefore, we do not have ERG or histopathological results for rd10 mice. In the Discussion, we referred to rd10 because we identified the rd10 mutation through whole-genome sequencing. The statement means that all rd6-RD mice have the Pde6 rd10/rd10 mutation.

Reviewer #2: When working with spontaneously occurring animal models, it is essential to remain alert to the possibility of additional pathogenic mutations beyond those already reported. This manuscript underscores the previously unrecognized presence of the rd10 mutation in commercially available rd6 mice, delivering an important cautionary message to researchers who rely on this model. Both the experimental design and the overall presentation are clear and persuasive.

My primary concern is that the conclusion—that severe retinal degeneration and retinal detachment in the rd6RD line arise from a combination of rd6 and rd10 mutations—is based solely on short-read whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data from a single mouse family. Because the Pde6b (c.1678C>T, p.R560C) mutation can be readily verified by Sanger sequencing, expanding the analysis to a larger cohort of animals would greatly strengthen the evidence. In addition, since rd10 mice are commercially available, crossing them with rd6 mice lacking the Pde6b mutation would test whether the rd6RD phenotype is truly reproducible, further enhancing the robustness of the conclusions.

Response: Thank you for your question. We have prepared S3 Table to address the comment regarding expanding the analysis to a larger cohort of animals. As Supplementary Information, we have included a table summarizing the correlation between phenotype and genotype. While the original submission included 10 animals, we have added additional data to bring the total to 18 animals. Accordingly, we revised the last four sentences of the Results section and added the title for S3 Fig. in the Supporting Information.

As you pointed out, since rd10 mice are commercially available, crossing them with rd6 mice lacking the Pde6b mutation would allow us to test whether the rd6RD phenotype is truly reproducible, thereby further strengthening the robustness of our conclusions. We would like to consider this in our future studies.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

pone.0332446.s007.doc (35.5KB, doc)

Decision Letter 1

Tatsuya Inoue

5 Aug 2025

PONE-D-25-22608R1Identification of coexisting Mfrprd6 and Pde6brd10 mutations causing spontaneous retinal detachment in commercially available rd6 micePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Igarashi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tatsuya Inoue

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

In the present study, the authors demonstrated the phenotype-genotype correlation in the rd6-RD mice. The manuscript is well-written, however the authors should address my concerns before publication.

It seems that the authors did not mention why the retinal detachment occurred in rd6-RD mice. It would be better to add the molecular biological consideration in the Discussion section.

Is there any similarity in gene expression between Mfrp and Pde6b?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 23;20(9):e0332446. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0332446.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


15 Aug 2025

Journal Requirements:

In the present study, the authors demonstrated the phenotype-genotype correlation in the rd6-RD mice. The manuscript is well-written, however the authors should address my concerns before publication.

1. It seems that the authors did not mention why the retinal detachment occurred in rd6-RD mice. It would be better to add the molecular biological consideration in the Discussion section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We agree that a molecular biological consideration regarding the occurrence of retinal detachment in rd6-RD mice should be included. We have now expanded the Discussion section to address this point on Page 16 and 17.

Previous studies have demonstrated that Mfrp deficiency impairs the development and maintenance of photoreceptor outer segments via RPE dysfunction [16] and causes RPE atrophy and consequent photoreceptor degeneration [17]. Moreover, recent biochemical analysis revealed that Mfrp functions as a molecular hub in the apical membrane of RPE cells, coordinating lipid homeostasis and protein trafficking [18].

Previous reviews have detailed the mechanisms underlying phototransduction failure and photoreceptor cell death in rd10 mice [20] and recent comparative studies have demonstrated that the rd10 mutation induces protein mislocalization and instability, leading to cGMP-mediated cell death [21]. In this study, rd6-RD mice were found to harbor both the Mfrp mutation, which is associated with impaired RPE function and defective photoreceptor outer segment phagocytosis, and the Pde6b mutation, which causes rapid photoreceptor degeneration due to impaired phototransduction. The combination of these genetic defects may lead to marked structural instability of the outer retina, disruption of the outer limiting membrane, and weakening of adhesion between the neural retina and the RPE. Moreover, accelerated photoreceptor cell death in rd6-RD mice could promote extracellular matrix remodeling and microglial activation, further compromising retinal integrity. These molecular and cellular alterations may act synergistically to facilitate the development of non-rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in this model.

2. Is there any similarity in gene expression between Mfrp and Pde6b?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s question regarding potential similarities in the expression profiles of Mfrp and Pde6b. We added the Discussion section to address this point on Page 17.

According to previous transcriptome analyses and public expression databases [22], both Mfrp and Pde6b exhibit retina-enriched expression, although they are predominantly localized to different retinal cell types. Mfrp is expressed mainly in the RPE and ciliary body [16], whereas Pde6b is expressed specifically in rod photoreceptors, where it plays an essential role in phototransduction [20]. Despite these differences in cell-type localization, transcriptome studies of retinal degenerative models have reported that loss-of-function mutations in either gene can lead to downstream dysregulation of common pathways, including photoreceptor survival, oxidative stress responses, and inflammation-related signaling [23, 24]. Therefore, while the upstream expression sites differ, there is overlap in the secondary gene expression changes observed in degenerating retina due to Mfrp or Pde6b dysfunction.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.doc

pone.0332446.s008.doc (32KB, doc)

Decision Letter 2

Tatsuya Inoue

31 Aug 2025

Identification of coexisting Mfrprd6 and Pde6brd10 mutations causing spontaneous retinal detachment in commercially available rd6 mice

PONE-D-25-22608R2

Dear Dr. Igarashi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tatsuya Inoue

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Tatsuya Inoue

PONE-D-25-22608R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Igarashi,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Tatsuya Inoue

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Mean coverage by whole-genome sequencing of eight mice.

    Genomic fractions analyzed by the indicated coverage are shown by colors.

    (PDF)

    pone.0332446.s001.pdf (51.4KB, pdf)
    S2 Fig. Raw images of OCT.

    (PDF)

    pone.0332446.s002.pdf (391.2KB, pdf)
    S1 Table. List of primers used for PCR amplification prior to deep sequencing.

    (PDF)

    pone.0332446.s003.pdf (20.6KB, pdf)
    S2 Table. List of values used to build graphs.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0332446.s004.xlsx (23.1KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. Confirming phenotype-genotype correlation in another cohort of rd6 mice used in this study.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0332446.s005.xlsx (10.2KB, xlsx)
    S1 File. Supplementary methods.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0332446.s006.docx (15.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    pone.0332446.s007.doc (35.5KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.doc

    pone.0332446.s008.doc (32KB, doc)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES