. 2016 Dec 1;6:37298. doi: 10.1038/srep37298

Table 2. Relationships between rhodopsin unfolding propensity, mutation class, and clinical phenotype in adRP for the selected group of pathogenic mutations, the in silico unfolding propensity, the mutational class⁴⁰,⁴¹, and phenotype data.

Mutation	Predicted Unfolding	Class [38,39]	Avg. NB Onset [40]	Avg. VFL Onset [40]	Avg. VAL Onset [40]	Sample Size
N15S	0.78		21 ± 3.6	21.7 ± 2.9	72.5 ± 3.5	3
T58R	0.89	II	14.3 ± 7.2	37 ± 23	35 ± 8.7	4
G106R	0.99		32.2 ± 14	33 ± 13	37 ± 6.1	7
P170R	0.99		15.7 ± 1.6	17 ± 2.8	—	7
P171L	1.00	II	10 ± 0	8.3 ± 3.5	30.5 ± 10.6	4
Y178C	0.99		10.3 ± 4.5	—	—	3
G182S	1.00	II	9.8 ± 2.4	24.3 ± 18	—	4
G188R	1.00	II	9.5 ± 8.9	25.4 ± 7.1	30.3 ± 5.6	6
D190Y	1.00	II	13.1 ± 5.8	17.9 ± 6.0	34.6 ± 10.8	13
P347L	0.98		8.7 ± 4.5	10.2 ± 4.8	22 ± 10.5	24

Phenotypes were the onsets of night blindness (NB), visual field loss (VFL), and visual acuity loss (VAL). For each phenotype, the average and standard deviation were calculated using the patient data⁴² if the mutation was found in > 2 patients.

Table 2. Relationships between rhodopsin unfolding propensity, mutation class, and clinical phenotype in adRP for the selected group of pathogenic mutations, the in silico unfolding propensity, the mutational class40,41, and phenotype data.

Table 2. Relationships between rhodopsin unfolding propensity, mutation class, and clinical phenotype in adRP for the selected group of pathogenic mutations, the in silico unfolding propensity, the mutational class⁴⁰,⁴¹, and phenotype data.