Optic Atrophy 14

Mendelian MONDO:0957824 Pathograph 7 Show in embeddings browser hereditary disease Mitochondrial Disease

Optic atrophy 14 (OPA14) is a dominantly inherited optic neuropathy caused by heterozygous missense variants in MIEF1, which encodes MID51 - an outer mitochondrial membrane protein that recruits the fission GTPase DRP1 to the organelle. It sits in the same axis as the other dominant optic atrophies: OPA1, MFN2 and OPA3 act on mitochondrial fusion, DNM1L on fission, and MIEF1 on the adaptor layer that decides where and when DRP1 acts. What unites them is not fission or fusion in particular but the *regulation* of the balance, and the retinal ganglion cell's apparent inability to tolerate its loss in either direction. The molecular result is unusually specific and is worth stating as a set of negatives. The two disease variants do not stop MID51 reaching the outer mitochondrial membrane, and they do not stop it oligomerising - the two things a missense variant in a membrane adaptor might most obviously be expected to do. What they do is abolish MID51's effect on the network: expressing wild-type MID51 increases mitochondrial fusion events, and expressing either mutant does not. Independent work locates the lesion one step further in, showing that the p.Y240N variant sits in the DRP1-binding loop, disrupts DRP1 recruitment while leaving MID51-Fis1 oligomerisation intact, and selectively inhibits DRP1 GTP hydrolysis - and, in the same experiments, leaves the mitochondria-lysosome contact pathway that MID51 also governs entirely alone. Clinically it is an outlier among the dominant optic atrophies in three respects that the defining paper sets out deliberately: onset in adulthood rather than in the first two decades, a sudden painless loss of acuity that looks like Leber hereditary optic neuropathy rather than the insidious decline of OPA1 disease, and - most distinctively - visual field loss that starts at the periphery and moves inward, the reverse of every other inherited optic neuropathy. The evidence base is two women, aged 55 and 47, from one French cohort of 200, with no reported family segregation and functional support from transient overexpression in HeLa cells. That is thin for a gene-disease assertion, and the entry says so rather than writing around it.

Ask OpenScientist

Ask a research question about Optic Atrophy 14. OpenScientist will conduct autonomous deep research using the Disorder Mechanisms Knowledge Base and PubMed literature (typically 10-30 minutes).

Submitting...

Do not include personal health information in your question. Questions and results are cached in your browser's local storage.

1
Inheritance
5
Pathophys.
6
Phenotypes
3
Gaps
7
Pathograph
1
Genes
3
Differentials
1
Models
4
References
1
Deep Research
🏷

Classifications

Harrison's Part
NEUROLOGIC GENETICS ENVIRONMENT DISEASE
Mechanistic Nosology
mitochondrial disease
👪

Inheritance

1
Autosomal dominant inheritance HP:0000006
Both reported patients are heterozygous for a MIEF1 missense variant, and the disease is described throughout the defining paper as dominant. What that rests on should be stated plainly, because it is not a segregation analysis. The two patients are unrelated women ascertained separately from a 200-person cohort; no affected relative, no pedigree and no transmission is described in the accessible text. Dominance is inferred from heterozygosity plus rarity plus an in vitro functional effect - which is a reasonable inference and is not the same as a demonstration. The gene-disease validity question this raises is an open discussion below.
Autosomal dominant inheritance
Show evidence (2 references)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"Using targeted sequencing of genes involved in mitochondrial dynamics, we report the first heterozygous variants in MIEF1 linked to disease, which cause an unusual form of late-onset progressive optic neuropathy characterized by the initial loss of peripheral visual fields."
Establishes heterozygosity and the dominant framing of the entity.
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"In addition, SNP array analyses revealed no chromosomal abnormality, no copy number variation and no large region of homozygosity that might have indicated a consanguinity."
Graded PARTIAL: it excludes a recessive explanation by consanguinity, which supports the dominant model indirectly, but it is not segregation evidence and no segregation is reported.
?

Discussions and Knowledge Gaps

3
Is the MIEF1-optic atrophy association established, and would it survive a formal gene-disease validity assessment?
KNOWLEDGE GAP OPEN opa14_gene_disease_validity
This is the first thing a reader of this entry should know, and the entry is written around it rather than despite it. The whole human evidence base is two unrelated women from one cohort, each heterozygous for a different missense variant. No affected relative is described, no segregation is reported, and no second family has been published in the five years since. One of the two variants, p.R146W, is rs778124994 and present in gnomAD, and lies in a domain the paper itself describes as having no known function. Functional support is transient overexpression in HeLa cells, measured against overexpressed wild-type rather than against an untransfected baseline. None of that means the association is wrong. The independent replication of the p.Y240N DRP1-binding defect by a second laboratory is real support, the clinical phenotype is genuinely unusual in a way that would be odd to arrive at by chance, and the gene sits squarely in a pathway whose other members cause the same disease. It means the association is *provisional*, which is how the pathophysiology nodes here are graded and why no treatment or prognosis content is curated. The concrete thing that would settle it is a second family with segregation, or a formal ClinGen gene-disease validity curation. Neither exists. Until one does, a curator should resist the pull to write this entry as though the entity were secure because it has a MONDO identifier and an OMIM number - those record that a claim was made, not that it was replicated.
Proposed experiments
Segregation in additional MIEF1 families
exp_opa14_second_family
Screen MIEF1 in inherited-optic-neuropathy cohorts that are unsolved after OPA1 and mitochondrial-DNA testing, prioritising patients with peripheral-onset field loss, and test segregation in any family found. Two informative meioses would do more for this entity than any further cell biology.
Does the loss of MID51's network-modulating effect seen in overexpressing HeLa cells describe what happens in a heterozygous patient's retinal ganglion cell?
HUMAN MODEL MISMATCH OPEN opa14_hela_overexpression_is_the_whole_model
Curated as HUMAN_MODEL_MISMATCH rather than KNOWLEDGE_GAP because the experiments exist and are well executed; what is untested is their relationship to the disease. The specific mismatch is not just the usual cell-line caveat. The review cited by this entry states that heterologous MiD overexpression sequesters inactive DRP1 and promotes fusion, whereas increased *endogenous* MiD promotes fission - the two conditions have opposite effects on the network. The assay therefore measures the mutants' failure to reproduce an overexpression phenotype, in a condition that does not occur in a patient, in a cervical adenocarcinoma line, against a background of intact endogenous wild-type MID51. What a patient has is one wild-type and one variant allele at the endogenous locus in a retinal ganglion cell. Whether that matters is genuinely open. It is entirely possible that the variants are simple loss-of-function alleles and the overexpression assay reads that out faithfully. It is also possible that the heterozygous phenotype involves the mutant protein interfering with the wild-type one, which this design cannot see, and which would change `functional_impact_category` on the trigger node from LOSS_OF_FUNCTION to DOMINANT_NEGATIVE. Note also that nothing about the retinal ganglion cell's selective vulnerability is addressed by any model of this disease. That is a gap shared with the entire dominant-optic-atrophy field rather than a MIEF1-specific one, which is why it is stated on the causal edge rather than made a separate discussion here.
Proposed experiments
Endogenous-locus MIEF1 variants in human retinal ganglion cells
exp_opa14_knockin_rgc
Knock the p.Y240N and p.R146W variants into the endogenous MIEF1 locus of induced pluripotent stem cells, heterozygously, differentiate to retinal ganglion cells, and measure mitochondrial morphology, network dynamics, axonal transport and survival against isogenic controls. Include a homozygous arm to distinguish haploinsufficiency from a dominant-negative effect.
Why does the optic-atrophy variant spare the mitochondria-lysosome contact pathway that MID51 also controls, and does that selectivity explain why the disease is confined to the optic nerve?
OPEN QUESTION OPEN opa14_pathway_selectivity
An unusually clean natural experiment sits inside this gene, and it has not been followed up. MID51 has two separable jobs. Through its DRP1-binding loop it recruits DRP1 and drives mitochondrial fission. Through a distinct oligomerisation interface, in complex with Fis1, it drives lysosomal untethering by way of Rab7 GTP hydrolysis at mitochondria-lysosome contact sites. The optic-atrophy variant p.Y240N hits the first and, in direct experiments, leaves the second untouched - it still forms a complex with Fis1 and does not misregulate lysosomal tethering. A different variant in the oligomerisation interface, p.R169W, does the reverse, and has been tentatively linked to Parkinson's disease rather than to optic atrophy. So one gene appears to produce two different neurological diseases through two separable interfaces, with a clean dissociation demonstrated in the same experiments. If that holds, it is a strong hypothesis for why MIEF1 disease is confined to the optic nerve rather than being a broader neurodegenerative syndrome. Two cautions before it is treated as established. The Parkinson's link for p.R169W is described in the source as potential rather than demonstrated, so half the dissociation rests on a tentative clinical association. And the optic-atrophy arm rests on p.Y240N alone; p.R146W has never been tested in the lysosomal assays, so it is unknown whether the second optic-atrophy allele shows the same selectivity.
Proposed experiments
Test p.R146W in the mitochondria-lysosome contact assays
exp_opa14_second_allele_lysosomal_assay
Apply the inter-lysosomal untethering and Rab7 GTP hydrolysis assays to the second optic-atrophy allele p.R146W, alongside p.Y240N and p.R169W. If p.R146W also spares the lysosomal arm, the interface-to-disease mapping becomes a property of the phenotype rather than of one variant.

Pathophysiology

5
Heterozygous MIEF1 Missense Variant
Two variants, one per patient. c.718T>A gives p.Y240N, which lies in MID51's DRP1-binding region; c.436C>T gives p.R146W, in a domain conserved with MID49 but of no known function. Neither is in the transmembrane domain that anchors MID51 in the outer membrane, and neither is at a residue previously shown to mediate oligomerisation - which is what makes the functional results below interpretable rather than merely negative. Marked PROVISIONAL rather than ESTABLISHED because the pathogenicity argument is rarity plus in silico prediction plus an in vitro effect, in two unrelated singletons. The p.Y240N variant is absent from databases; p.R146W is rs778124994 at a gnomAD frequency of about 2 in 100,000, which is rare but not private.
MIEF1 hgnc:25979 HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (hgnc) Relation: this pathophysiological event involves this gene This pathophysiological event involves MIEF1 (hgnc:25979). hgnc:25979 is a gene from the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee.
Genetic context variant_origin: GERMLINE zygosity: HETEROZYGOUS functional_impact_category: LOSS_OF_FUNCTION
Curated as LOSS_OF_FUNCTION, and the choice needs its reasoning stated because the alternatives are live. The measured effect is that the mutants fail to do what wild-type MID51 does - wild-type expression increases fusion events, mutant expression does not - which is loss of a normal activity, and the follow-up work attributes it specifically to loss of DRP1 recruitment. DOMINANT_NEGATIVE is the obvious competing hypothesis for a heterozygous missense variant in an oligomeric adaptor, and it has not been excluded: no experiment reported here tests the mutant against wild-type MID51 in the same cell, and the assays are transient overexpression rather than expression from the endogenous locus. If a dominant-negative mechanism is later demonstrated, this slot should change.
Show evidence (2 references)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"These variants lead to the p.Y240N and the p.R146W amino-acid changes in MID51, respectively, with p.Y240N located in a DRP1 binding domain, and p.R146W located in another domain conserved within MID49, but without known function"
Names both variants and locates them on the protein, which is what the mechanism below turns on.
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"In contrast, neither disease-linked mutations (p.Y240N or p.R146W) are located in MID51's transmembrane domain which mediates its outer mitochondrial membrane localization (residues 1 to 48)"
Establishes that the variants are positioned to spare localisation, which is what the experiments then confirm. The quote stops at the bracketed citation marker; the same sentence continues to make the equivalent point about the oligomerisation residues.
Preserved MID51 Localisation and Oligomerisation
A node that records what the disease is not, because two obvious mechanisms were tested and excluded, and excluding them is what makes the positive finding meaningful. Both mutant proteins localise to the mitochondrial network in live cells just as wild-type MID51 does, so this is not a mislocalisation disease. Both form dimers, tetramers and high-molecular-weight species in the same ratios as wild-type, so it is not an oligomerisation disease either. A curator adding to this entry should not later attach a mislocalisation or misassembly mechanism to it without new data; these were looked for and were not there. An independent group extended the second of those negatives one step downstream. MID51's other job, in complex with Fis1, is to drive lysosomal untethering at mitochondria-lysosome contact sites, and that function depends on the oligomerisation interface rather than on DRP1 binding. The optic-atrophy variant p.Y240N leaves it intact: it still forms a Mid51/Fis1 complex and does not misregulate lysosomal untethering or lysosomal network dynamics. So the preservation established here is not an incidental in vitro observation - it has a measurable functional consequence, and it is what makes the disease's lesion specific rather than general. Whether that specificity explains why the disease is confined to the optic nerve is an open question below.
mitochondrial outer membrane GO:0005741 Gene Ontology (GO) Relation: this pathophysiological event involves this cellular component This pathophysiological event involves mitochondrial outer membrane (GO:0005741). GO:0005741 is a cellular component from the Gene Ontology.
Show evidence (3 references)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT In Vitro
"This was also true for mutant MID51 p.Y240N and p.R146W proteins, which also localized to the mitochondrial network in live cells (Fig. 3a, b), demonstrating that these MIEF1 missense variants linked to optic neuropathy do not alter MID51's mitochondrial localization."
Directly supports this node as it is named - localisation is preserved. The excluded hypothesis is mislocalisation, and it is excluded by this result being positive for preservation rather than by a REFUTE grading; `supports` is claim-relative and the claim here is the preserved state.
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT In Vitro
"Thus, these MIEF1 missense variants linked to optic neuropathy do not significantly disrupt the oligomerization of MID51."
Directly supports this node as it is named - oligomerisation is preserved. An oligomerisation mechanism is thereby excluded.
PMID:36044022 SUPPORT In Vitro
"In contrast, mutant Mid51(Y240N) associated with dominant optic atrophy, which does not disrupt Mid51/Fis1-coupled oligomerization, does not misregulate lysosomal untethering events or downstream lysosomal network dynamics."
An independent group's confirmation that oligomerisation is preserved, plus the functional consequence: the Mid51/Fis1-dependent lysosomal arm is spared. This is what turns the preserved state from an in vitro observation into a statement about which of MID51's functions the disease actually damages.
Impaired DRP1 Recruitment to the Outer Mitochondrial Membrane
The proposed molecular lesion. MID51's job is to recruit DRP1, a dynamin-related GTPase that has no membrane-binding domain of its own, onto the outer mitochondrial membrane so that it can constrict and divide the organelle. The p.Y240 residue sits in the loop that binds DRP1, and independent work concludes that the p.Y240N variant disrupts DRP1 recruitment while leaving MID51 oligomerisation intact, with the downstream consequence of selectively inhibiting DRP1 GTP hydrolysis. Marked PROVISIONAL for a specific reason, not as a general hedge. The DRP1 recruitment claim is well evidenced for p.Y240N, whose position in the binding loop predicts it. It is *not* evidenced for p.R146W, which lies in a domain of unknown function outside the DRP1-binding region, and for which no DRP1 experiment has been reported. Both variants produce the same network phenotype at the node below, so either p.R146W reaches it by the same route for a reason nobody has identified, or the two alleles converge from different molecular starting points. Nothing published distinguishes these.
mitochondrial fission GO:0000266 Gene Ontology (GO) Relation: this pathophysiological event involves this biological process This pathophysiological event involves dysregulated mitochondrial fission (GO:0000266). GO:0000266 is a biological process from the Gene Ontology. ↕ DYSREGULATED
DRP1 recruitment activity of MID51 GO:0030674 Gene Ontology (GO) Relation: this pathophysiological event involves this molecular function This pathophysiological event involves decreased DRP1 recruitment activity of MID51, annotated with protein-macromolecule adaptor activity (GO:0030674). GO:0030674 is a molecular function from the Gene Ontology. ↓ DECREASED
Show evidence (2 references)
PMID:36044022 SUPPORT In Vitro
"Mid51(Y240N) Drp1-binding domain mutant which is linked to dominant optic atrophy disrupts Drp1 recruitment but not Mid51 oligomerization, leading to the selective inhibition of Drp1 GTP hydrolysis"
The specific molecular claim of this node, from an independent laboratory studying the same variant.
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Other
"Our findings that Mid51 optic neuropathy-linked variants disrupt mitochondrial fission/fusion dynamics but not its localization or oligomerization are consistent with the fact that p.Y240 is a residue located in the loop region (residues 238-242) critical for DRP1 binding"
The structural argument that motivates this node. Graded OTHER because it is the authors' interpretation of prior structural work rather than an experiment they performed.
Disrupted Mitochondrial Network Dynamics
The measured cellular phenotype, and the strongest evidence in the entity. Using a photoactivatable matrix probe to count fusion events between mitochondria in live cells, wild-type MID51 expression increased the rate of fusion, and both mutants significantly decreased it relative to wild-type. Read the direction carefully, because it is counterintuitive. MID51 is a *fission* adaptor, yet overexpressing wild-type MID51 increases *fusion* - the established explanation being that excess MID51 sequesters DRP1 in an inactive state on the outer membrane, so the net effect of more adaptor is less fission. The mutants fail to produce that effect. So what the assay measures directly is the loss of MID51's ability to modulate the network at all, not a shift toward either fission or fusion in the patient. The entry deliberately does not claim that patients' mitochondria are fragmented or elongated: nobody has looked at a patient's cells.
mitochondrial fusion GO:0008053 Gene Ontology (GO) Relation: this pathophysiological event involves this biological process This pathophysiological event involves dysregulated mitochondrial fusion (GO:0008053). GO:0008053 is a biological process from the Gene Ontology. ↕ DYSREGULATED
Show evidence (2 references)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT In Vitro
"In contrast, both MID51 p.Y240N and p.R146W mutants resulted in significantly decreased mitochondrial fusion events and disrupted mitochondrial network dynamics, as compared to wild-type MID51 (Fig. 3j-m)."
The primary quantitative result for both variants.
PMID:27660309 SUPPORT Other
"Heterologous MiD overexpression sequesters inactive Drp1 on the OMM, promoting fusion; conversely, increased endogenous MiD creates focused Drp1 multimers that optimize OMM scission."
Explains why overexpressing a fission adaptor increases fusion, which is what makes the assay's direction interpretable. It is also the reason this node stops short of claiming a network phenotype in patients: the review states that the overexpression and endogenous situations differ.
Retinal Ganglion Cell Degeneration and Optic Nerve Atrophy
The clinical endpoint. Both patients had pale, moderately excavated optic disks with a normal retina, strongly abnormal visual evoked potentials, and - in the patient who had optical coherence tomography - retinal nerve fibre layer collapse in all quadrants of both eyes. The retinal nerve fibre layer is the retinal ganglion cell axon layer, so its loss is the closest available measurement of the cellular claim in this node's title. Marked PROVISIONAL because ganglion cell death itself is inferred, not observed: no tissue from a MIEF1 patient has been examined. What is observed is optic disc pallor plus axon-layer thinning plus conduction failure, which is the standard clinical basis for inferring ganglion cell loss in the inherited optic neuropathies.
retinal ganglion cell CL:0000740 Cell Ontology (CL) Relation: this pathophysiological event involves this cell type This pathophysiological event involves retinal ganglion cell (CL:0000740). CL:0000740 is a cell type from the Cell Ontology.
optic nerve UBERON:0000941 Uberon multi-species anatomy ontology (UBERON) Relation: this pathophysiological event occurs in this anatomical location This pathophysiological event occurs in optic nerve, annotated with cranial nerve II (UBERON:0000941). UBERON:0000941 is an anatomical location from the Uberon multi-species anatomy ontology.
Show evidence (2 references)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"At fundus examination, both individuals had normal retina, but presented pale and moderately excavated optic disks (Fig. 1a)."
The optic nerve finding, with a normal retina excluding a retinal dystrophy.
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"OCT (optical coherence tomography) examination revealed collapsed RNFL (retinal nerve fiber layer) in all quadrants in both eyes (Fig. 1c)."
Axon-layer loss, the measurable correlate of retinal ganglion cell degeneration.

Pathograph

Use the checkboxes to hide or show graph categories. Hover nodes for evidence and cross-linked metadata.
Pathograph: causal mechanism network for Optic Atrophy 14 Interactive directed graph showing how pathophysiology mechanisms, phenotypes, genetic factors and variants, experimental models, environmental triggers, and treatments relate through causal and linked edges.

Phenotypes

6
Eye 3
Optic Atrophy HP:0000648 Human Phenotype Ontology (HP) Relation: this clinical feature is this phenotype This clinical feature is Optic atrophy (HP:0000648), qualified as course progressive; middle age onset, range 47-55y. HP:0000648 is a phenotype from the Human Phenotype Ontology.
Course: PROGRESSIVE Onset: MIDDLE AGE; 47-55y
Show evidence (2 references)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"In both individuals, the disease progressed to poor vision"
The progressive course in both reported patients.
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"First, the visual loss was noticed during adulthood, rather than during the first two decades, as commonly observed in other DOA"
The adult onset that distinguishes this entity from the other dominant optic atrophies, and the basis for the structured onset above.
Peripheral Visual Field Loss Preceding Central Loss Constriction of peripheral visual field HP:0001133 Human Phenotype Ontology (HP) Relation: this clinical feature is this phenotype This clinical feature is Constriction of peripheral visual field (HP:0001133). HP:0001133 is a phenotype from the Human Phenotype Ontology.
Show evidence (1 reference)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"Thirdly, both cases examined here showed that the disease progressed from the peripheral to the central visual field, still preserving some visual acuity in the left eye of the first patient. This is in contrast with all the reports of ION cases, in which the alteration of the visual field..."
States both the finding and the contrast with every other inherited optic neuropathy, which is what makes it discriminating.
Reduced Visual Acuity HP:0007663 Human Phenotype Ontology (HP) Relation: this clinical feature is this phenotype This clinical feature is Reduced visual acuity (HP:0007663), qualified as temporality acute. HP:0007663 is a phenotype from the Human Phenotype Ontology.
Temporal: ACUTE
Show evidence (1 reference)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"Secondly, both patients complained of a rather sudden painless loss of visual acuity, similar to those observed in maternally inherited LHON, although without optic disk elevation or edema, which is distinct from what is generally observed for other autosomal optic neuropathies"
The character and tempo of the acuity loss, and the LHON resemblance.
Other 3
Optic Disc Pallor HP:0000543 Human Phenotype Ontology (HP) Relation: this clinical feature is this phenotype This clinical feature is Optic disc pallor (HP:0000543). HP:0000543 is a phenotype from the Human Phenotype Ontology.
Show evidence (1 reference)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"At fundus examination, both individuals had normal retina, but presented pale and moderately excavated optic disks (Fig. 1a)."
Disc pallor in both patients.
Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thinning Abnormal retinal nerve fiber layer morphology HP:0020119 Human Phenotype Ontology (HP) Relation: this clinical feature is this phenotype This clinical feature is Retinal nerve fiber layer thinning, annotated with Abnormal retinal nerve fiber layer morphology (HP:0020119). HP:0020119 is a phenotype from the Human Phenotype Ontology.
Show evidence (1 reference)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"OCT (optical coherence tomography) examination revealed collapsed RNFL (retinal nerve fiber layer) in all quadrants in both eyes (Fig. 1c)."
The OCT finding in patient 2.
Abnormal Visual Evoked Potentials Abnormality of visual evoked potentials HP:0000649 Human Phenotype Ontology (HP) Relation: this clinical feature is this phenotype This clinical feature is Abnormality of visual evoked potentials (HP:0000649). HP:0000649 is a phenotype from the Human Phenotype Ontology.
Show evidence (1 reference)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"Visual evoked potentials were strongly affected for both eyes, while scotopic and photopic electroretinograms (ERGs) were normal."
Abnormal conduction with preserved outer-retinal function, localising the lesion.
🧬

Genetic Associations

1
MIEF1
Gene: MIEF1 hgnc:25979 HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (hgnc) Relation: this disease-associated gene is this gene This disease-associated gene is MIEF1 (hgnc:25979). hgnc:25979 is a gene from the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee. relationship_type: CAUSATIVE variant_origin: GERMLINE
Show evidence (2 references)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"The first individual harbored a c.718 T > A variant, not referenced in any database, and the second individual harbored a c.436C > T variant, referred to as rs778124994, with a frequency of 1.99e-5 in GnomAD database."
The two alleles and their population frequencies.
PMID:36044022 SUPPORT Other
"Mid51(Y240N), located in its Drp1-binding domain, was linked to dominant optic atrophy"
A second group's independent statement of the variant's domain assignment. Graded OTHER rather than IN_VITRO because the sentence is background framing in that paper's introduction rather than a result it reports.
🔬

Diagnosis

1
Recognising the Reversed Visual Field Pattern and Sequencing MIEF1
The practical content of this entity is a pattern-recognition rule. An adult with sudden painless bilateral visual loss, pale non-swollen optic discs, abnormal visual evoked potentials with normal electroretinograms, and a field defect that started at the *periphery*, who is negative for OPA1, OPA3, WFS1 and the LHON mitochondrial-DNA mutations, is the patient in whom MIEF1 should be sequenced. The defining paper makes exactly that recommendation. Two negatives are part of the workup and were done in both reported patients: glaucoma was excluded, and serology for anti-aquaporin-4 and anti-myelin-oligodendrocyte-glycoprotein antibodies was negative. Both are important because a sudden painless optic neuropathy in a middle-aged woman is more often an acquired inflammatory one than a genetic one.
Show evidence (2 references)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"Together, our work should prompt the molecular screening of MIEF1 in ION individuals with severe alterations of the peripheral visual field"
The authors' own screening recommendation, which is the diagnostic content of this entity.
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"At initial assessments, neither of the two individuals had symptoms or immunological profiles compatible with Glaucoma, Neuro Myelitis Optica or myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein optic neuritis."
The acquired causes that were excluded before a genetic diagnosis was pursued.
📊

Prevalence

1
French inherited optic neuropathy cohort
Cases In Literature Ultra Rare
Two patients, both women, from a cohort of 200 individuals in France with inherited optic neuropathy who had already been screened negative for OPA1, OPA3, WFS1 and the three primary LHON mitochondrial-DNA mutations. No further MIEF1 patient has been published. The fraction - two of two hundred, or one percent - is a diagnostic yield within an already-selected undiagnosed cohort, not a prevalence and not the share of inherited optic neuropathy attributable to MIEF1. The cohort was enriched for cases that the common genes had failed to explain, which inflates any rare gene's apparent share, and the panel covered only 22 genes, which means an unknown fraction of those 200 remain undiagnosed for reasons the study could not see. A larger unselected series from the same French diagnostic service puts an upper bound on the gene's importance. Sequencing 87 nuclear genes plus the Leber mitochondrial-DNA mutations in 2,186 probands referred for suspected hereditary optic neuropathy reached a diagnosis in 30 percent, and ten genes accounted for more than 96 percent of those diagnoses. MIEF1 is not among those ten. Eleven further genes, each under one percent of cases, together explained 17 individuals in the whole series - so whatever share MIEF1 holds lies inside that residue. Note what this does *not* add: patients. The 2023 series comes from the same Angers reference centre and shares five authors with the 2021 MIEF1 report, including its first author, so any MIEF1 case within it is presumptively one of the two already reported rather than a new one. This entry counts two patients in total.
Show evidence (4 references)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"Two hundred individuals in France affected by an ION were included in this study. None of the individuals included had a molecular diagnosis after screening for pathogenic variants in OPA1, OPA3 and WFS1 exonic sequences and LHON-associated mtDNA mutations."
The cohort and its prior-exclusion criteria, which is what makes the two-in-two-hundred figure a yield rather than a prevalence.
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"we identified two individuals (Fig. 1) harboring a MIEF1 heterozygous variant, which were confirmed by Sanger sequencing"
The two patients found.
PMID:36317462 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"The identified top 10 nuclear genes included OPA1, WFS1, ACO2, SPG7, MFN2, AFG3L2, RTN4IP1, TMEM126A, NR2F1 and FDXR."
MIEF1 is absent from the ten genes that account for more than 96 percent of nuclear hereditary optic neuropathy diagnoses in a 2,186-proband series, which bounds how common it can be.
+ 1 more reference
🔀

Differential Diagnoses

3

Conditions with similar clinical presentations that must be differentiated from Optic Atrophy 14:

Overlapping Features The most consequential differential, because MIEF1 disease imitates it. Both present with sudden painless bilateral visual loss; LHON is maternally transmitted through mitochondrial-DNA mutations and typically shows optic disc elevation and peripapillary telangiectasia in the acute phase, which these patients did not have. Both reported MIEF1 patients had been screened for the three primary LHON mutations and were negative, which is why they were in the undiagnosed cohort at all.
Show evidence (1 reference)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"Secondly, both patients complained of a rather sudden painless loss of visual acuity, similar to those observed in maternally inherited LHON, although without optic disk elevation or edema"
States the resemblance and the one clinical feature that separates them.
Acquired optic neuropathies - glaucoma, neuromyelitis optica, MOG-antibody optic neuritis
Overlapping Features Not genetic, but the practical differential for an adult presenting this way, and the one the reported patients were worked up for. Peripheral-first field loss with excavated discs is also the pattern of glaucoma, which makes normal intraocular pressure - documented in the second patient - a load-bearing observation rather than a formality.
Show evidence (1 reference)
PMID:33632269 SUPPORT Human Clinical
"She presented with pale and excavated optic disks (Fig. 1a, right) with normal intra-ocular pressure (IOP: RE: 9 and LE: 10 mmHg)."
Excavated discs with normal pressure, which is what separates this from glaucoma.
🧫

Experimental Models

1
MID51 variant expression in HeLa cells CELL_LINE
Transient expression of mCherry- or myc-tagged wild-type, p.Y240N and p.R146W MID51 in HeLa cells, assayed by live confocal microscopy for localisation, by immunoprecipitation and immunoblot for oligomerisation, and by photoactivatable matrix probe for fusion events. This is the entire functional evidence base for the disease, and it is the same system in which the independent group later mapped the DRP1-recruitment defect.
{ }

Source YAML

click to show
name: Optic Atrophy 14
creation_date: "2026-08-28T00:00:00Z"
category: Mendelian
disease_term:
  preferred_term: Optic atrophy 14
  term:
    id: MONDO:0957824
    label: optic atrophy 14
description: >-
  Optic atrophy 14 (OPA14) is a dominantly inherited optic neuropathy caused by
  heterozygous missense variants in MIEF1, which encodes MID51 - an outer
  mitochondrial membrane protein that recruits the fission GTPase DRP1 to the
  organelle. It sits in the same axis as the other dominant optic atrophies:
  OPA1, MFN2 and OPA3 act on mitochondrial fusion, DNM1L on fission, and MIEF1 on
  the adaptor layer that decides where and when DRP1 acts. What unites them is
  not fission or fusion in particular but the *regulation* of the balance, and
  the retinal ganglion cell's apparent inability to tolerate its loss in either
  direction.

  The molecular result is unusually specific and is worth stating as a set of
  negatives. The two disease variants do not stop MID51 reaching the outer
  mitochondrial membrane, and they do not stop it oligomerising - the two things
  a missense variant in a membrane adaptor might most obviously be expected to
  do. What they do is abolish MID51's effect on the network: expressing wild-type
  MID51 increases mitochondrial fusion events, and expressing either mutant does
  not. Independent work locates the lesion one step further in, showing that the
  p.Y240N variant sits in the DRP1-binding loop, disrupts DRP1 recruitment while
  leaving MID51-Fis1 oligomerisation intact, and selectively inhibits DRP1 GTP
  hydrolysis - and, in the same experiments, leaves the mitochondria-lysosome
  contact pathway that MID51 also governs entirely alone.

  Clinically it is an outlier among the dominant optic atrophies in three
  respects that the defining paper sets out deliberately: onset in adulthood
  rather than in the first two decades, a sudden painless loss of acuity that
  looks like Leber hereditary optic neuropathy rather than the insidious decline
  of OPA1 disease, and - most distinctively - visual field loss that starts at
  the periphery and moves inward, the reverse of every other inherited optic
  neuropathy.

  The evidence base is two women, aged 55 and 47, from one French cohort of 200,
  with no reported family segregation and functional support from transient
  overexpression in HeLa cells. That is thin for a gene-disease assertion, and
  the entry says so rather than writing around it.
parents:
- hereditary disease
- Mitochondrial Disease
synonyms:
- OPA14
- MIEF1-related optic neuropathy
- MID51-related dominant optic atrophy
classifications:
  harrisons_chapter:
  - classification_value: NEUROLOGIC
    notes: >-
      An inherited optic neuropathy - a neurodegenerative disease of the retinal
      ganglion cell and its axon.
  - classification_value: GENETICS_ENVIRONMENT_DISEASE
    notes: >-
      A Mendelian disorder identified by targeted sequencing.
  mechanistic_category:
  - classification_value: mitochondrial disease
    notes: >-
      Assigned on the mitochondrial-dynamics mechanism rather than on a
      respiratory-chain defect: no bioenergetic abnormality has been measured in
      this disease.
references:
- reference: PMID:33632269
  title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
- reference: PMID:36044022
  title: "Mid51/Fis1 mitochondrial oligomerization complex drives lysosomal untethering and network dynamics."
- reference: PMID:27660309
  title: "The role of Drp1 adaptor proteins MiD49 and MiD51 in mitochondrial fission: implications for human disease."
- reference: PMID:36317462
  title: "The top 10 most frequently involved genes in hereditary optic neuropathies in 2186 probands."
inheritance:
- name: Autosomal dominant inheritance
  inheritance_term:
    preferred_term: Autosomal dominant inheritance
    term:
      id: HP:0000006
      label: Autosomal dominant inheritance
  description: >-
    Both reported patients are heterozygous for a MIEF1 missense variant, and the
    disease is described throughout the defining paper as dominant.

    What that rests on should be stated plainly, because it is not a segregation
    analysis. The two patients are unrelated women ascertained separately from a
    200-person cohort; no affected relative, no pedigree and no transmission is
    described in the accessible text. Dominance is inferred from heterozygosity
    plus rarity plus an in vitro functional effect - which is a reasonable
    inference and is not the same as a demonstration. The gene-disease validity
    question this raises is an open discussion below.
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      Using targeted sequencing of genes involved in mitochondrial dynamics, we
      report the first heterozygous variants in MIEF1 linked to disease, which
      cause an unusual form of late-onset progressive optic neuropathy
      characterized by the initial loss of peripheral visual fields.
    explanation: >-
      Establishes heterozygosity and the dominant framing of the entity.
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      In addition, SNP array analyses revealed no chromosomal abnormality, no
      copy number variation and no large region of homozygosity that might have
      indicated a consanguinity.
    explanation: >-
      Graded PARTIAL: it excludes a recessive explanation by consanguinity, which
      supports the dominant model indirectly, but it is not segregation evidence
      and no segregation is reported.
pathophysiology:
- name: Heterozygous MIEF1 Missense Variant
  biological_scale: MOLECULAR
  role: trigger
  mechanism_confidence: PROVISIONAL
  description: >-
    Two variants, one per patient. c.718T>A gives p.Y240N, which lies in MID51's
    DRP1-binding region; c.436C>T gives p.R146W, in a domain conserved with MID49
    but of no known function. Neither is in the transmembrane domain that anchors
    MID51 in the outer membrane, and neither is at a residue previously shown to
    mediate oligomerisation - which is what makes the functional results below
    interpretable rather than merely negative.

    Marked PROVISIONAL rather than ESTABLISHED because the pathogenicity argument
    is rarity plus in silico prediction plus an in vitro effect, in two unrelated
    singletons. The p.Y240N variant is absent from databases; p.R146W is
    rs778124994 at a gnomAD frequency of about 2 in 100,000, which is rare but
    not private.
  genes:
  - preferred_term: MIEF1
    term:
      id: hgnc:25979
      label: MIEF1
  genetic_context:
    functional_impact_category: LOSS_OF_FUNCTION
    zygosity: HETEROZYGOUS
    variant_origin: GERMLINE
    description: >-
      Curated as LOSS_OF_FUNCTION, and the choice needs its reasoning stated
      because the alternatives are live. The measured effect is that the mutants
      fail to do what wild-type MID51 does - wild-type expression increases
      fusion events, mutant expression does not - which is loss of a normal
      activity, and the follow-up work attributes it specifically to loss of DRP1
      recruitment. DOMINANT_NEGATIVE is the obvious competing hypothesis for a
      heterozygous missense variant in an oligomeric adaptor, and it has not been
      excluded: no experiment reported here tests the mutant against wild-type
      MID51 in the same cell, and the assays are transient overexpression rather
      than expression from the endogenous locus. If a dominant-negative
      mechanism is later demonstrated, this slot should change.
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      These variants lead to the p.Y240N and the p.R146W amino-acid changes in
      MID51, respectively, with p.Y240N located in a DRP1 binding domain, and
      p.R146W located in another domain conserved within MID49, but without known
      function
    explanation: >-
      Names both variants and locates them on the protein, which is what the
      mechanism below turns on.
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      In contrast, neither disease-linked mutations (p.Y240N or p.R146W) are
      located in MID51's transmembrane domain which mediates its outer
      mitochondrial membrane localization (residues 1 to 48)
    explanation: >-
      Establishes that the variants are positioned to spare localisation, which
      is what the experiments then confirm. The quote stops at the bracketed
      citation marker; the same sentence continues to make the equivalent point
      about the oligomerisation residues.
  downstream:
  - target: Preserved MID51 Localisation and Oligomerisation
    causal_link_type: DIRECT
  - target: Impaired DRP1 Recruitment to the Outer Mitochondrial Membrane
    causal_link_type: DIRECT
- name: Preserved MID51 Localisation and Oligomerisation
  biological_scale: MOLECULAR
  role: modifier
  mechanism_confidence: ESTABLISHED
  description: >-
    A node that records what the disease is not, because two obvious mechanisms
    were tested and excluded, and excluding them is what makes the positive
    finding meaningful.

    Both mutant proteins localise to the mitochondrial network in live cells just
    as wild-type MID51 does, so this is not a mislocalisation disease. Both form
    dimers, tetramers and high-molecular-weight species in the same ratios as
    wild-type, so it is not an oligomerisation disease either. A curator adding
    to this entry should not later attach a mislocalisation or
    misassembly mechanism to it without new data; these were looked for and were
    not there.

    An independent group extended the second of those negatives one step
    downstream. MID51's other job, in complex with Fis1, is to drive lysosomal
    untethering at mitochondria-lysosome contact sites, and that function depends
    on the oligomerisation interface rather than on DRP1 binding. The
    optic-atrophy variant p.Y240N leaves it intact: it still forms a
    Mid51/Fis1 complex and does not misregulate lysosomal untethering or
    lysosomal network dynamics. So the preservation established here is not an
    incidental in vitro observation - it has a measurable functional consequence,
    and it is what makes the disease's lesion specific rather than general.
    Whether that specificity explains why the disease is confined to the optic
    nerve is an open question below.
  cellular_components:
  - preferred_term: mitochondrial outer membrane
    term:
      id: GO:0005741
      label: mitochondrial outer membrane
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: IN_VITRO
    snippet: >-
      This was also true for mutant MID51 p.Y240N and p.R146W proteins, which
      also localized to the mitochondrial network in live cells (Fig. 3a, b),
      demonstrating that these MIEF1 missense variants linked to optic neuropathy
      do not alter MID51's mitochondrial localization.
    explanation: >-
      Directly supports this node as it is named - localisation is preserved.
      The excluded hypothesis is mislocalisation, and it is excluded by this
      result being positive for preservation rather than by a REFUTE grading;
      `supports` is claim-relative and the claim here is the preserved state.
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: IN_VITRO
    snippet: >-
      Thus, these MIEF1 missense variants linked to optic neuropathy do not
      significantly disrupt the oligomerization of MID51.
    explanation: >-
      Directly supports this node as it is named - oligomerisation is preserved.
      An oligomerisation mechanism is thereby excluded.
  - reference: PMID:36044022
    reference_title: "Mid51/Fis1 mitochondrial oligomerization complex drives lysosomal untethering and network dynamics."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: IN_VITRO
    snippet: >-
      In contrast, mutant Mid51(Y240N) associated with dominant optic atrophy,
      which does not disrupt Mid51/Fis1-coupled oligomerization, does not
      misregulate lysosomal untethering events or downstream lysosomal network
      dynamics.
    explanation: >-
      An independent group's confirmation that oligomerisation is preserved, plus
      the functional consequence: the Mid51/Fis1-dependent lysosomal arm is
      spared. This is what turns the preserved state from an in vitro observation
      into a statement about which of MID51's functions the disease actually
      damages.
- name: Impaired DRP1 Recruitment to the Outer Mitochondrial Membrane
  biological_scale: MOLECULAR
  role: central_effector
  mechanism_confidence: PROVISIONAL
  description: >-
    The proposed molecular lesion. MID51's job is to recruit DRP1, a
    dynamin-related GTPase that has no membrane-binding domain of its own, onto
    the outer mitochondrial membrane so that it can constrict and divide the
    organelle. The p.Y240 residue sits in the loop that binds DRP1, and
    independent work concludes that the p.Y240N variant disrupts DRP1 recruitment
    while leaving MID51 oligomerisation intact, with the downstream consequence
    of selectively inhibiting DRP1 GTP hydrolysis.

    Marked PROVISIONAL for a specific reason, not as a general hedge. The DRP1
    recruitment claim is well evidenced for p.Y240N, whose position in the
    binding loop predicts it. It is *not* evidenced for p.R146W, which lies in a
    domain of unknown function outside the DRP1-binding region, and for which no
    DRP1 experiment has been reported. Both variants produce the same network
    phenotype at the node below, so either p.R146W reaches it by the same route
    for a reason nobody has identified, or the two alleles converge from
    different molecular starting points. Nothing published distinguishes these.
  molecular_functions:
  - preferred_term: DRP1 recruitment activity of MID51
    term:
      id: GO:0030674
      label: protein-macromolecule adaptor activity
    modifier: DECREASED
  biological_processes:
  - preferred_term: mitochondrial fission
    term:
      id: GO:0000266
      label: mitochondrial fission
    modifier: DYSREGULATED
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:36044022
    reference_title: "Mid51/Fis1 mitochondrial oligomerization complex drives lysosomal untethering and network dynamics."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: IN_VITRO
    snippet: >-
      Mid51(Y240N) Drp1-binding domain mutant which is linked to dominant optic
      atrophy disrupts Drp1 recruitment but not Mid51 oligomerization, leading to
      the selective inhibition of Drp1 GTP hydrolysis
    explanation: >-
      The specific molecular claim of this node, from an independent laboratory
      studying the same variant.
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: OTHER
    snippet: >-
      Our findings that Mid51 optic neuropathy-linked variants disrupt
      mitochondrial fission/fusion dynamics but not its localization or
      oligomerization are consistent with the fact that p.Y240 is a residue
      located in the loop region (residues 238-242) critical for DRP1 binding
    explanation: >-
      The structural argument that motivates this node. Graded OTHER because it
      is the authors' interpretation of prior structural work rather than an
      experiment they performed.
  downstream:
  - target: Disrupted Mitochondrial Network Dynamics
    causal_link_type: DIRECT
- name: Disrupted Mitochondrial Network Dynamics
  biological_scale: CELLULAR
  role: effector
  mechanism_confidence: ESTABLISHED
  description: >-
    The measured cellular phenotype, and the strongest evidence in the entity.
    Using a photoactivatable matrix probe to count fusion events between
    mitochondria in live cells, wild-type MID51 expression increased the rate of
    fusion, and both mutants significantly decreased it relative to wild-type.

    Read the direction carefully, because it is counterintuitive. MID51 is a
    *fission* adaptor, yet overexpressing wild-type MID51 increases *fusion* -
    the established explanation being that excess MID51 sequesters DRP1 in an
    inactive state on the outer membrane, so the net effect of more adaptor is
    less fission. The mutants fail to produce that effect. So what the assay
    measures directly is the loss of MID51's ability to modulate the network at
    all, not a shift toward either fission or fusion in the patient. The entry
    deliberately does not claim that patients' mitochondria are fragmented or
    elongated: nobody has looked at a patient's cells.
  biological_processes:
  - preferred_term: mitochondrial fusion
    term:
      id: GO:0008053
      label: mitochondrial fusion
    modifier: DYSREGULATED
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: IN_VITRO
    snippet: >-
      In contrast, both MID51 p.Y240N and p.R146W mutants resulted in
      significantly decreased mitochondrial fusion events and disrupted
      mitochondrial network dynamics, as compared to wild-type MID51 (Fig. 3j-m).
    explanation: >-
      The primary quantitative result for both variants.
  - reference: PMID:27660309
    reference_title: "The role of Drp1 adaptor proteins MiD49 and MiD51 in mitochondrial fission: implications for human disease."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: OTHER
    snippet: >-
      Heterologous MiD overexpression sequesters inactive Drp1 on the OMM,
      promoting fusion; conversely, increased endogenous MiD creates focused Drp1
      multimers that optimize OMM scission.
    explanation: >-
      Explains why overexpressing a fission adaptor increases fusion, which is
      what makes the assay's direction interpretable. It is also the reason this
      node stops short of claiming a network phenotype in patients: the review
      states that the overexpression and endogenous situations differ.
  downstream:
  - target: Retinal Ganglion Cell Degeneration and Optic Nerve Atrophy
    causal_link_type: INDIRECT_UNKNOWN_INTERMEDIATES
    description: >-
      Why disrupted mitochondrial dynamics kills retinal ganglion cells in
      particular is the unsolved question of the whole dominant-optic-atrophy
      field, not a gap specific to MIEF1. No intermediate step has been
      demonstrated for this gene.
- name: Retinal Ganglion Cell Degeneration and Optic Nerve Atrophy
  biological_scale: TISSUE
  role: outcome
  mechanism_confidence: PROVISIONAL
  description: >-
    The clinical endpoint. Both patients had pale, moderately excavated optic
    disks with a normal retina, strongly abnormal visual evoked potentials, and -
    in the patient who had optical coherence tomography - retinal nerve fibre
    layer collapse in all quadrants of both eyes. The retinal nerve fibre layer
    is the retinal ganglion cell axon layer, so its loss is the closest available
    measurement of the cellular claim in this node's title.

    Marked PROVISIONAL because ganglion cell death itself is inferred, not
    observed: no tissue from a MIEF1 patient has been examined. What is observed
    is optic disc pallor plus axon-layer thinning plus conduction failure, which
    is the standard clinical basis for inferring ganglion cell loss in the
    inherited optic neuropathies.
  cell_types:
  - preferred_term: retinal ganglion cell
    term:
      id: CL:0000740
      label: retinal ganglion cell
  locations:
  - preferred_term: optic nerve
    term:
      id: UBERON:0000941
      label: cranial nerve II
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      At fundus examination, both individuals had normal retina, but presented
      pale and moderately excavated optic disks (Fig. 1a).
    explanation: >-
      The optic nerve finding, with a normal retina excluding a retinal
      dystrophy.
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      OCT (optical coherence tomography) examination revealed collapsed RNFL
      (retinal nerve fiber layer) in all quadrants in both eyes (Fig. 1c).
    explanation: >-
      Axon-layer loss, the measurable correlate of retinal ganglion cell
      degeneration.
phenotypes:
- category: Ophthalmological
  name: Optic Atrophy
  description: >-
    Late-onset, progressive and bilateral, presenting in the fifth and sixth
    decades rather than in childhood. Both patients progressed to poor vision.
  phenotype_term:
    preferred_term: Optic atrophy
    term:
      id: HP:0000648
      label: Optic atrophy
    clinical_course: PROGRESSIVE
    onset:
      onset_category: MIDDLE_AGE
      min_age_years: 47
      max_age_years: 55
      notes: >-
        The two reported patients were 55 and 47 at the time of study, and both
        first came to ophthalmological attention in adulthood. The paper's own
        first discriminating criterion is that "the visual loss was noticed
        during adulthood, rather than during the first two decades, as commonly
        observed in other DOA". The ages recorded here are ages at study rather
        than ages at onset, which the source does not separate cleanly for
        patient 1 - she noticed a faint visual problem in 2002 and lost acuity in
        2015 - so treat them as bounding the presentation rather than dating it.

        On the band chosen, because the paper's own title invites the wrong one.
        `MIDDLE_AGE` is HP:0003596 "Middle age onset", which HPO scopes to 40-60
        years, and both patients fall inside it. `LATE` is HP:0003584, scoped to
        onset after 60, and would be wrong here. The paper is titled "late onset"
        in the ordinary sense - late relative to the first two decades, when
        other dominant optic atrophies declare themselves - not in HPO's sense.
        Do not "correct" this to LATE on the strength of the title.
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      In both individuals, the disease progressed to poor vision
    explanation: >-
      The progressive course in both reported patients.
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      First, the visual loss was noticed during adulthood, rather than during the
      first two decades, as commonly observed in other DOA
    explanation: >-
      The adult onset that distinguishes this entity from the other dominant
      optic atrophies, and the basis for the structured onset above.
- category: Ophthalmological
  name: Optic Disc Pallor
  phenotype_term:
    preferred_term: Optic disc pallor
    term:
      id: HP:0000543
      label: Optic disc pallor
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      At fundus examination, both individuals had normal retina, but presented
      pale and moderately excavated optic disks (Fig. 1a).
    explanation: >-
      Disc pallor in both patients.
- category: Ophthalmological
  name: Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thinning
  description: >-
    Optical coherence tomography in the second patient showed the retinal nerve
    fibre layer collapsed in all quadrants of both eyes. The retinal nerve fibre
    layer is the retinal ganglion cell axon layer, so this is the closest
    available structural measurement of the cell loss the disease is presumed to
    cause - and the reason the pathophysiology node above can name ganglion cells
    at all. Reported in one of the two patients, because only one had OCT.
  phenotype_term:
    preferred_term: Retinal nerve fiber layer thinning
    term:
      id: HP:0020119
      label: Abnormal retinal nerve fiber layer morphology
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      OCT (optical coherence tomography) examination revealed collapsed RNFL
      (retinal nerve fiber layer) in all quadrants in both eyes (Fig. 1c).
    explanation: >-
      The OCT finding in patient 2.
- category: Ophthalmological
  name: Peripheral Visual Field Loss Preceding Central Loss
  description: >-
    The most distinctive feature of this entity, and the one the defining paper
    presents as discriminating. In every other inherited optic neuropathy the
    field defect begins centrally and spreads outward; here it began at the
    periphery and moved inward, sparing some central acuity even late. That is a
    testable clinical marker, and it is the reason the authors recommend
    screening MIEF1 specifically in patients with severe peripheral field
    alteration.
  phenotype_term:
    preferred_term: Constriction of peripheral visual field
    term:
      id: HP:0001133
      label: Constriction of peripheral visual field
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      Thirdly, both cases examined here showed that the disease progressed from
      the peripheral to the central visual field, still preserving some visual
      acuity in the left eye of the first patient. This is in contrast with all
      the reports of ION cases, in which the alteration of the visual field
      occurs and evolves from the center to the periphery.
    explanation: >-
      States both the finding and the contrast with every other inherited optic
      neuropathy, which is what makes it discriminating.
- category: Ophthalmological
  name: Reduced Visual Acuity
  description: >-
    Sudden and painless in both patients, without the optic disc elevation or
    oedema seen in other autosomal optic neuropathies - a presentation that
    resembles Leber hereditary optic neuropathy and is a route to
    misdiagnosis.
  phenotype_term:
    preferred_term: Reduced visual acuity
    term:
      id: HP:0007663
      label: Reduced visual acuity
    temporality: ACUTE
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      Secondly, both patients complained of a rather sudden painless loss of
      visual acuity, similar to those observed in maternally inherited LHON,
      although without optic disk elevation or edema, which is distinct from what
      is generally observed for other autosomal optic neuropathies
    explanation: >-
      The character and tempo of the acuity loss, and the LHON resemblance.
- category: Ophthalmological
  name: Abnormal Visual Evoked Potentials
  description: >-
    Strongly abnormal in both patients, with normal scotopic and photopic
    electroretinograms in the first - the electrophysiological pairing that
    places the lesion in the ganglion cell and its axon rather than in the outer
    retina.
  phenotype_term:
    preferred_term: Abnormality of visual evoked potentials
    term:
      id: HP:0000649
      label: Abnormality of visual evoked potentials
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      Visual evoked potentials were strongly affected for both eyes, while
      scotopic and photopic electroretinograms (ERGs) were normal.
    explanation: >-
      Abnormal conduction with preserved outer-retinal function, localising the
      lesion.
genetic:
- name: MIEF1
  gene_term:
    preferred_term: MIEF1
    term:
      id: hgnc:25979
      label: MIEF1
  relationship_type: CAUSATIVE
  variant_origin: GERMLINE
  presence: PRESENT
  notes: >-
    MIEF1 encodes MID51, also written MiD51; the gene is sometimes referred to by
    the protein name, and its paralogue MIEF2 encodes MID49. Only two disease
    alleles are known: c.718T>A p.(Tyr240Asn), absent from databases, in exon 6;
    and c.436C>T p.(Arg146Trp), rs778124994, in exon 5, at a gnomAD frequency of
    1.99e-5.

    A transcription error in the source, flagged so it is not propagated. The
    figure legend describing the second variant states that c.436C>T is
    "localized at position 416 of the MID51 protein" while naming the change
    p.R146W in the same sentence; 146 is the position consistent with the
    nucleotide change, the sequence alignment, and every other mention in the
    paper. Read 416 as a typographical error for 146.

    What is not known about this gene's variants. There is no reported MIEF1
    variant that is *not* disease-associated in a patient with optic neuropathy,
    no missense-constraint analysis, and no second family - so a new MIEF1
    missense variant found in a patient with optic atrophy has essentially no
    gene-specific precedent to be interpreted against, beyond whether it falls in
    the DRP1-binding loop.
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      The first individual harbored a c.718 T > A variant, not referenced in any
      database, and the second individual harbored a c.436C > T variant, referred
      to as rs778124994, with a frequency of 1.99e-5 in GnomAD database.
    explanation: >-
      The two alleles and their population frequencies.
  - reference: PMID:36044022
    reference_title: "Mid51/Fis1 mitochondrial oligomerization complex drives lysosomal untethering and network dynamics."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: OTHER
    snippet: >-
      Mid51(Y240N), located in its Drp1-binding domain, was linked to dominant
      optic atrophy
    explanation: >-
      A second group's independent statement of the variant's domain assignment.
      Graded OTHER rather than IN_VITRO because the sentence is background
      framing in that paper's introduction rather than a result it reports.
prevalence:
- population: French inherited optic neuropathy cohort
  measure_type: CASES_IN_LITERATURE
  prevalence_class: ULTRA_RARE
  notes: >-
    Two patients, both women, from a cohort of 200 individuals in France with
    inherited optic neuropathy who had already been screened negative for OPA1,
    OPA3, WFS1 and the three primary LHON mitochondrial-DNA mutations. No further
    MIEF1 patient has been published.

    The fraction - two of two hundred, or one percent - is a diagnostic yield
    within an already-selected undiagnosed cohort, not a prevalence and not the
    share of inherited optic neuropathy attributable to MIEF1. The cohort was
    enriched for cases that the common genes had failed to explain, which inflates
    any rare gene's apparent share, and the panel covered only 22 genes, which
    means an unknown fraction of those 200 remain undiagnosed for reasons the
    study could not see.

    A larger unselected series from the same French diagnostic service puts an
    upper bound on the gene's importance. Sequencing 87 nuclear genes plus the
    Leber mitochondrial-DNA mutations in 2,186 probands referred for suspected
    hereditary optic neuropathy reached a diagnosis in 30 percent, and ten genes
    accounted for more than 96 percent of those diagnoses. MIEF1 is not among
    those ten. Eleven further genes, each under one percent of cases, together
    explained 17 individuals in the whole series - so whatever share MIEF1 holds
    lies inside that residue.

    Note what this does *not* add: patients. The 2023 series comes from the same
    Angers reference centre and shares five authors with the 2021 MIEF1 report,
    including its first author, so any MIEF1 case within it is presumptively one
    of the two already reported rather than a new one. This entry counts two
    patients in total.
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      Two hundred individuals in France affected by an ION were included in this
      study. None of the individuals included had a molecular diagnosis after
      screening for pathogenic variants in OPA1, OPA3 and WFS1 exonic sequences
      and LHON-associated mtDNA mutations.
    explanation: >-
      The cohort and its prior-exclusion criteria, which is what makes the
      two-in-two-hundred figure a yield rather than a prevalence.
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      we identified two individuals (Fig. 1) harboring a MIEF1 heterozygous
      variant, which were confirmed by Sanger sequencing
    explanation: >-
      The two patients found.
  - reference: PMID:36317462
    reference_title: "The top 10 most frequently involved genes in hereditary optic neuropathies in 2186 probands."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      The identified top 10 nuclear genes included OPA1, WFS1, ACO2, SPG7, MFN2,
      AFG3L2, RTN4IP1, TMEM126A, NR2F1 and FDXR.
    explanation: >-
      MIEF1 is absent from the ten genes that account for more than 96 percent of
      nuclear hereditary optic neuropathy diagnoses in a 2,186-proband series,
      which bounds how common it can be.
  - reference: PMID:36317462
    reference_title: "The top 10 most frequently involved genes in hereditary optic neuropathies in 2186 probands."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      Eleven additional genes, each accounting for less than 1% of cases, were
      identified in 17 individuals.
    explanation: >-
      Quantifies the residue outside the top ten - 17 individuals across eleven
      genes - which is the population any MIEF1 share must come from. The
      abstract does not name those eleven genes, so this entry does not assert
      that MIEF1 is one of them.
experimental_models:
- name: MID51 variant expression in HeLa cells
  experimental_model_type: CELL_LINE
  description: >-
    Transient expression of mCherry- or myc-tagged wild-type, p.Y240N and
    p.R146W MID51 in HeLa cells, assayed by live confocal microscopy for
    localisation, by immunoprecipitation and immunoblot for oligomerisation, and
    by photoactivatable matrix probe for fusion events. This is the entire
    functional evidence base for the disease, and it is the same system in which
    the independent group later mapped the DRP1-recruitment defect.
  modeled_mechanisms:
  - target: Disrupted Mitochondrial Network Dynamics
    relationship: RECAPITULATES
    fidelity: LOW
    description: >-
      The assay demonstrates that both patient variants abolish MID51's normal
      effect on mitochondrial network dynamics, which is the disease's proposed
      cellular lesion.
    limitations: >-
      Three limitations, and they compound. The cell is a cervical
      adenocarcinoma line, not a retinal ganglion cell, and the selective
      vulnerability of that neuron is the whole unexplained part of the disease.
      The variants are expressed transiently from a plasmid on top of endogenous
      wild-type MID51 rather than from the endogenous locus, and the cited review
      states explicitly that heterologous overexpression and increased endogenous
      MiD have opposite effects on the network - so the assay's baseline is a
      condition that does not occur in a patient. And the readout is a
      difference from overexpressed wild-type MID51, not from an untransfected
      cell, which measures loss of an overexpression artefact's effect rather
      than the variant's effect on a normal cell. Fidelity is graded LOW on that
      basis.
    readouts:
    - name: Mitochondrial fusion events after mito-PAGFP photoactivation
      target: Disrupted Mitochondrial Network Dynamics
      direction: DECREASED
      interpretation: >-
        Both mutants gave significantly fewer fusion events than wild-type MID51,
        which is the quantitative basis for the disease's cellular claim.
      evidence:
      - reference: PMID:33632269
        reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
        supports: SUPPORT
        evidence_source: IN_VITRO
        snippet: >-
          In contrast, both MID51 p.Y240N and p.R146W mutants resulted in
          significantly decreased mitochondrial fusion events and disrupted
          mitochondrial network dynamics, as compared to wild-type MID51 (Fig.
          3j-m).
        explanation: >-
          The fusion-event measurement underlying this readout.
    evidence:
    - reference: PMID:33632269
      reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
      supports: SUPPORT
      evidence_source: IN_VITRO
      snippet: >-
        Together, these results show that MIEF1 mutations linked to optic
        neuropathy preferentially disrupt the ability of MID51 to regulate
        mitochondrial fission/fusion dynamics.
      explanation: >-
        The authors' conclusion from this model, which is what makes it
        informative for this node.
  - target: Preserved MID51 Localisation and Oligomerisation
    relationship: MEASURES
    fidelity: MODERATE
    description: >-
      The same system was used to test, and exclude, mislocalisation and
      oligomerisation defects. Graded MEASURES rather than RECAPITULATES because
      the informative result is a negative one: the model establishes that two
      candidate mechanisms are absent.
    limitations: >-
      A negative result in an overexpression system is weaker than a positive
      one, because excess wild-type protein could mask a partial folding or
      trafficking defect. The oligomerisation assay in particular scores tagged
      protein pulled down from a transfected cell, not the endogenous complex.
    readouts:
    - name: MID51 oligomer to monomer ratio by immunoprecipitation
      target: Preserved MID51 Localisation and Oligomerisation
      direction: UNCHANGED
      interpretation: >-
        Mutant and wild-type MID51 formed dimers, tetramers and
        high-molecular-weight species in similar ratios - a real negative
        result, recorded as such.
      evidence:
      - reference: PMID:33632269
        reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
        supports: SUPPORT
        evidence_source: IN_VITRO
        snippet: >-
          Similarly, we found that both mutant proteins MID51 p.Y240N (Fig. 3d-f)
          and MID51 p.R146W (Fig. 3g-i) also showed similar oligomerization
          patterns to wild-type MID51 (Fig. 3c), with similar ratios of each
          oligomeric species to monomer levels.
        explanation: >-
          The oligomerisation measurement underlying this readout.
    evidence:
    - reference: PMID:33632269
      reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
      supports: SUPPORT
      evidence_source: IN_VITRO
      snippet: >-
        We next investigated whether MIEF1 variants disrupted the ability of
        MID51 to self-oligomerize.
      explanation: >-
        Establishes that the model was applied to this question, which is what
        makes its negative result usable.
diagnosis:
- name: Recognising the Reversed Visual Field Pattern and Sequencing MIEF1
  description: >-
    The practical content of this entity is a pattern-recognition rule. An adult
    with sudden painless bilateral visual loss, pale non-swollen optic discs,
    abnormal visual evoked potentials with normal electroretinograms, and a field
    defect that started at the *periphery*, who is negative for OPA1, OPA3, WFS1
    and the LHON mitochondrial-DNA mutations, is the patient in whom MIEF1 should
    be sequenced. The defining paper makes exactly that recommendation.

    Two negatives are part of the workup and were done in both reported patients:
    glaucoma was excluded, and serology for anti-aquaporin-4 and
    anti-myelin-oligodendrocyte-glycoprotein antibodies was negative. Both are important because a sudden
    painless optic neuropathy in a middle-aged woman is more often an acquired
    inflammatory one than a genetic one.
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      Together, our work should prompt the molecular screening of MIEF1 in ION
      individuals with severe alterations of the peripheral visual field
    explanation: >-
      The authors' own screening recommendation, which is the diagnostic content
      of this entity.
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      At initial assessments, neither of the two individuals had symptoms or
      immunological profiles compatible with Glaucoma, Neuro Myelitis Optica or
      myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein optic neuritis.
    explanation: >-
      The acquired causes that were excluded before a genetic diagnosis was
      pursued.
differential_diagnoses:
- name: OPA1-related dominant optic atrophy and the other mitochondrial-dynamics optic neuropathies
  description: >-
    The genes are neighbours in mechanism and separable on presentation. OPA1
    accounts for most dominant optic atrophy, with more than 400 pathogenic
    variants described, and typically declares itself in the first two decades
    with insidious central visual loss. MFN2 and OPA3 act on fusion; SPG7 and
    AFG3L2 act indirectly through OPA1 processing; DNM1L acts on fission from the
    other side of the balance. MIEF1 is distinguished from all of them by adult
    onset, sudden painless acuity loss, and peripheral-first field loss - and, if
    those fail, by sequencing.
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: OTHER
    snippet: >-
      In dominant optic atrophy (DOA, MIM165500), it is now well established that
      mutations in genes involved in mitochondrial dynamics such as OPA1
      (MIM#605290) are the main cause of the disease. More than 400 distinct
      pathogenic variants have been described in OPA1
    explanation: >-
      Establishes OPA1 as the dominant-optic-atrophy differential's largest
      component.
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: OTHER
    snippet: >-
      Interestingly, DNM1L mutations resulting in excessive mitochondrial fusion
      have also been identified in patients with a similar ophthalmological
      presentation
    explanation: >-
      Places a fission-side gene in the same clinical territory as the
      fusion-side ones.
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: OTHER
    snippet: >-
      thus providing evidence that alterations of both fusion and fission
      compromise retinal ganglion cell survival
    explanation: >-
      The principle that unites the differential: imbalance in either direction
      damages the same neuron, which is why MIEF1 belongs in this list despite
      acting on the opposite side from OPA1.
- name: Leber hereditary optic neuropathy
  description: >-
    The most consequential differential, because MIEF1 disease imitates it. Both
    present with sudden painless bilateral visual loss; LHON is maternally
    transmitted through mitochondrial-DNA mutations and typically shows optic
    disc elevation and peripapillary telangiectasia in the acute phase, which
    these patients did not have. Both reported MIEF1 patients had been screened
    for the three primary LHON mutations and were negative, which is why they
    were in the undiagnosed cohort at all.
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      Secondly, both patients complained of a rather sudden painless loss of
      visual acuity, similar to those observed in maternally inherited LHON,
      although without optic disk elevation or edema
    explanation: >-
      States the resemblance and the one clinical feature that separates them.
- name: Acquired optic neuropathies - glaucoma, neuromyelitis optica, MOG-antibody optic neuritis
  description: >-
    Not genetic, but the practical differential for an adult presenting this way,
    and the one the reported patients were worked up for. Peripheral-first field
    loss with excavated discs is also the pattern of glaucoma, which makes normal
    intraocular pressure - documented in the second patient - a load-bearing
    observation rather than a formality.
  evidence:
  - reference: PMID:33632269
    reference_title: "Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy."
    supports: SUPPORT
    evidence_source: HUMAN_CLINICAL
    snippet: >-
      She presented with pale and excavated optic disks (Fig. 1a, right) with
      normal intra-ocular pressure (IOP: RE: 9 and LE: 10 mmHg).
    explanation: >-
      Excavated discs with normal pressure, which is what separates this from
      glaucoma.
discussions:
- discussion_id: opa14_gene_disease_validity
  kind: KNOWLEDGE_GAP
  status: OPEN
  prompt: >-
    Is the MIEF1-optic atrophy association established, and would it survive a
    formal gene-disease validity assessment?
  attaches_to:
  - "genetic#MIEF1"
  - "pathophysiology#Heterozygous MIEF1 Missense Variant"
  rationale: >-
    This is the first thing a reader of this entry should know, and the entry is
    written around it rather than despite it.

    The whole human evidence base is two unrelated women from one cohort, each
    heterozygous for a different missense variant. No affected relative is
    described, no segregation is reported, and no second family has been
    published in the five years since. One of the two variants, p.R146W, is
    rs778124994 and present in gnomAD, and lies in a domain the paper itself
    describes as having no known function. Functional support is transient
    overexpression in HeLa cells, measured against overexpressed wild-type rather
    than against an untransfected baseline.

    None of that means the association is wrong. The independent replication of
    the p.Y240N DRP1-binding defect by a second laboratory is real support, the
    clinical phenotype is genuinely unusual in a way that would be odd to arrive
    at by chance, and the gene sits squarely in a pathway whose other members
    cause the same disease. It means the association is *provisional*, which is
    how the pathophysiology nodes here are graded and why no
    treatment or prognosis content is curated.

    The concrete thing that would settle it is a second family with segregation,
    or a formal ClinGen gene-disease validity curation. Neither exists. Until one
    does, a curator should resist the pull to write this entry as though the
    entity were secure because it has a MONDO identifier and an OMIM number -
    those record that a claim was made, not that it was replicated.
  proposed_experiments:
  - experiment_id: exp_opa14_second_family
    name: Segregation in additional MIEF1 families
    description: >-
      Screen MIEF1 in inherited-optic-neuropathy cohorts that are unsolved after
      OPA1 and mitochondrial-DNA testing, prioritising patients with
      peripheral-onset field loss, and test segregation in any family found. Two
      informative meioses would do more for this entity than any further cell
      biology.
- discussion_id: opa14_hela_overexpression_is_the_whole_model
  kind: HUMAN_MODEL_MISMATCH
  status: OPEN
  prompt: >-
    Does the loss of MID51's network-modulating effect seen in overexpressing
    HeLa cells describe what happens in a heterozygous patient's retinal ganglion
    cell?
  attaches_to:
  - "pathophysiology#Disrupted Mitochondrial Network Dynamics"
  - "experimental_models#MID51 variant expression in HeLa cells"
  rationale: >-
    Curated as HUMAN_MODEL_MISMATCH rather than KNOWLEDGE_GAP because the
    experiments exist and are well executed; what is untested is their
    relationship to the disease.

    The specific mismatch is not just the usual cell-line caveat. The review
    cited by this entry states that heterologous MiD overexpression sequesters
    inactive DRP1 and promotes fusion, whereas increased *endogenous* MiD
    promotes fission - the two conditions have opposite effects on the network.
    The assay therefore measures the mutants' failure to reproduce an
    overexpression phenotype, in a condition that does not occur in a patient, in
    a cervical adenocarcinoma line, against a background of intact endogenous
    wild-type MID51. What a patient has is one wild-type and one variant allele
    at the endogenous locus in a retinal ganglion cell.

    Whether that matters is genuinely open. It is entirely possible that the
    variants are simple loss-of-function alleles and the overexpression assay
    reads that out faithfully. It is also possible that the heterozygous
    phenotype involves the mutant protein interfering with the wild-type one,
    which this design cannot see, and which would change
    `functional_impact_category` on the trigger node from LOSS_OF_FUNCTION to
    DOMINANT_NEGATIVE.

    Note also that nothing about the retinal ganglion cell's selective
    vulnerability is addressed by any model of this disease. That is a gap shared
    with the entire dominant-optic-atrophy field rather than a MIEF1-specific
    one, which is why it is stated on the causal edge rather than made a separate
    discussion here.
  proposed_experiments:
  - experiment_id: exp_opa14_knockin_rgc
    name: Endogenous-locus MIEF1 variants in human retinal ganglion cells
    description: >-
      Knock the p.Y240N and p.R146W variants into the endogenous MIEF1 locus of
      induced pluripotent stem cells, heterozygously, differentiate to retinal
      ganglion cells, and measure mitochondrial morphology, network dynamics,
      axonal transport and survival against isogenic controls. Include a
      homozygous arm to distinguish haploinsufficiency from a dominant-negative
      effect.
- discussion_id: opa14_pathway_selectivity
  kind: OPEN_QUESTION
  status: OPEN
  prompt: >-
    Why does the optic-atrophy variant spare the mitochondria-lysosome contact
    pathway that MID51 also controls, and does that selectivity explain why the
    disease is confined to the optic nerve?
  attaches_to:
  - "pathophysiology#Impaired DRP1 Recruitment to the Outer Mitochondrial Membrane"
  rationale: >-
    An unusually clean natural experiment sits inside this gene, and it has not
    been followed up.

    MID51 has two separable jobs. Through its DRP1-binding loop it recruits DRP1
    and drives mitochondrial fission. Through a distinct oligomerisation
    interface, in complex with Fis1, it drives lysosomal untethering by way of
    Rab7 GTP hydrolysis at mitochondria-lysosome contact sites. The
    optic-atrophy variant p.Y240N hits the first and, in direct experiments,
    leaves the second untouched - it still forms a complex with Fis1 and does not
    misregulate lysosomal tethering. A different variant in the oligomerisation
    interface, p.R169W, does the reverse, and has been tentatively linked to
    Parkinson's disease rather than to optic atrophy.

    So one gene appears to produce two different neurological diseases through
    two separable interfaces, with a clean dissociation demonstrated in the same
    experiments. If that holds, it is a strong hypothesis for why MIEF1 disease
    is confined to the optic nerve rather than being a broader neurodegenerative
    syndrome.

    Two cautions before it is treated as established. The Parkinson's link for
    p.R169W is described in the source as potential rather than demonstrated, so
    half the dissociation rests on a tentative clinical association. And the
    optic-atrophy arm rests on p.Y240N alone; p.R146W has never been tested in
    the lysosomal assays, so it is unknown whether the second optic-atrophy
    allele shows the same selectivity.
  proposed_experiments:
  - experiment_id: exp_opa14_second_allele_lysosomal_assay
    name: Test p.R146W in the mitochondria-lysosome contact assays
    description: >-
      Apply the inter-lysosomal untethering and Rab7 GTP hydrolysis assays to the
      second optic-atrophy allele p.R146W, alongside p.Y240N and p.R169W. If
      p.R146W also spares the lysosomal arm, the interface-to-disease mapping
      becomes a property of the phenotype rather than of one variant.
notes: >-
  On conformance, which this entry deliberately does not declare. The obvious
  candidate module is `mitochondrial_dysfunction`, and it does not fit: its nodes
  are age-related mitochondrial damage and mtDNA mutation, bioenergetic decline
  and oxidative stress, impaired mitophagy and quality control, mitochondrial
  contribution to senescence and inflammation, and age-related tissue
  dysfunction. None of them is about fission-fusion balance, and no bioenergetic,
  reactive-oxygen or mitophagy measurement exists for MIEF1, so declaring
  conformance to the bioenergetic node would assert an unmeasured claim in order
  to gain a link.

  What is missing is a mitochondrial-dynamics module. The genes that would
  populate it are named in this entry's own differential - OPA1, MFN2, OPA3,
  DNM1L, MFF, SPG7, AFG3L2, YME1L1 and MIEF1 - and they converge on one node,
  that regulated fission-fusion balance is required for retinal ganglion cell
  survival, with the striking property that imbalance in either direction
  produces the same disease. Creating that module is a larger piece of work than
  a single-disease entry should contain, and it should be created from the OPA1
  and DNM1L literature rather than from this two-patient entity. Recorded here so
  the absence is a decision rather than an oversight.

  On what is not curated. There is no `treatments:` block, no `progression:`
  block beyond what the phenotype descriptions carry, and no `animal_models:`
  block. No therapy has been reported or trialled for MIEF1 disease, and no
  natural history study exists beyond the two individual descriptions.

  On the absent `animal_models:` block specifically, since the claim is easy to
  overstate. No animal carrying a disease-linked MIEF1 allele has been reported
  in any source consulted for this entry. That is narrower than "MIEF1 has no
  animal biology": Mid51 is studied in mice and in cultured cells for its
  ordinary fission and mitophagy roles, and a search on the gene returns that
  work first. None of it involves p.Y240N or p.R146W, so none of it models this
  disease, and a curator should not promote a Mid51 mouse paper into this entry
  on the strength of the gene name.

  The idebenone literature for Leber hereditary optic neuropathy and the general
  dominant-optic-atrophy management literature are both close enough to look
  importable, and importing either would attribute to two patients an experience
  recorded only in people with other genotypes.

  On the deep-research report committed with this entry. It was used as a lead
  and one of its claims did not survive checking, which is recorded here because
  the number is the kind that gets copied. The report states that MIEF1 accounted
  for about 1.08 percent of positive optic atrophy diagnoses in the 2,186-proband
  series; that series' abstract says the genes outside its top ten each account
  for *less than* one percent, and does not name MIEF1 at all. The bound curated
  in the prevalence block is the one the abstract supports, not the report's
  figure. Its Named Entity Confusion preflight passes cleanly (MIEF1 mentioned 47
  times, next gene OPA1 at 3).

  On the direction of the cellular phenotype. The measured result is that
  wild-type MID51 overexpression increases mitochondrial fusion and the mutants
  do not. It is tempting to compress that into "MIEF1 variants cause
  mitochondrial fragmentation" or "cause hyperfusion"; neither is supported.
  Nothing has been measured in a patient's cells, and the direction of the effect
  in the assay is a property of the overexpression system rather than of the
  disease. The node states the loss of modulation and stops there.
📚

References & Deep Research

References

4
Dominant mutations in MIEF1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy.
No top-level findings curated for this source.
Mid51/Fis1 mitochondrial oligomerization complex drives lysosomal untethering and network dynamics.
No top-level findings curated for this source.
The role of Drp1 adaptor proteins MiD49 and MiD51 in mitochondrial fission: implications for human disease.
No top-level findings curated for this source.
The top 10 most frequently involved genes in hereditary optic neuropathies in 2186 probands.
No top-level findings curated for this source.

Deep Research

1
Falcon
Optic Atrophy 14 (MIEF1/MID51-related): Comprehensive Disease-Characteristics Report
Edison Scientific Literature 12 citations 2026-08-28T11:43:03.419597

Optic Atrophy 14 (MIEF1/MID51-related): Comprehensive Disease-Characteristics Report

Executive summary and evidence limits

Optic atrophy 14 (OPA14) is an ultra-rare, apparently autosomal-dominant mitochondrial-dynamics disorder caused by heterozygous variants in MIEF1, encoding the outer-mitochondrial-membrane protein MID51. Its defining phenotype is isolated, late-onset, progressive bilateral optic neuropathy, unusual among inherited optic neuropathies because peripheral visual-field loss precedes or exceeds central loss. The entire disease-defining clinical evidence retrieved traces to two women reported in 2021; consequently, frequencies calculated below describe that two-person series, not reliable population estimates. Open Targets recognizes the MIEF1–OPA14 association but likewise grounds its four evidence records in the same publication, PMID 33632269. (OpenTargets Search: optic atrophy 14-MIEF1, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 1-3)

The most important verified findings and evidence gaps are summarized here:

domain verified finding quantitative details evidence type/strength
disease identity Optic atrophy 14 is a very rare inherited optic neuropathy associated with MIEF1 (MID51); MONDO disease mapping supports the association. MONDO:0957824; MIEF1 Ensembl ENSG00000100335; Open Targets association score 0.5659 with 4 evidence items tied to PMID 33632269. (OpenTargets Search: optic atrophy 14-MIEF1) Curated disease-target database + primary human report; moderate for identity, limited by few cases.
Patient 1 Female with late-adult onset, non-syndromic optic neuropathy featuring peripheral visual field loss progressing to central loss, optic disc pallor/excavation, abnormal VEP, normal ERG/retina. Age 55; origin Maghreb; first noted visual problem in 2002; right-eye BVA 10/20 initially, by 2015 right eye 1/20, left eye 18/20; elevated sedimentation rate 44 mm; no peripheral neuropathy reported. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4) Primary human case report; strong for phenotype in this individual.
Patient 2 Female with late-adult onset optic neuropathy after cesarean delivery, superior altitudinal/peripheral field loss, optic disc pallor/excavation, macular microcysts, severe RNFL loss, abnormal VEP, normal brain MRI/ENT. Age 47; born in Egypt; onset 2002, 1 month after cesarean; initial BVA right 3/20, left 10/20; by 2012 right 2/20, left 8/20; by 2015 right hand moving, left 4/20; IOP right 9 mmHg, left 10 mmHg. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4) Primary human case report; strong for phenotype in this individual.
genetics Two heterozygous missense MIEF1 variants were identified and confirmed by Sanger sequencing; inheritance interpreted as dominant/monoallelic, but familial segregation data were not reported. Patient 1: c.718T>A, p.Y240N, absent from cited databases; Patient 2: c.436C>T, p.R146W, rs778124994, gnomAD frequency 1.99e-5; variants predicted damaging by SIFT/PolyPhen and disease-causing by MutationTaster. ClinVar records RCV003387453/RCV003387454 released 2023-10-28. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, OpenTargets Search: optic atrophy 14-MIEF1) Primary human genetics + curated variant database; moderate-high for variant-disease link, limited by n=2 and absent segregation.
functional mechanism Disease-linked MID51 variants do not disrupt mitochondrial localization or oligomerization, but do impair mitochondrial network dynamics/fusion in cell assays; p.Y240N lies in the DRP1-binding region. Mutant proteins localized to mitochondria similarly to WT; oligomerization pattern retained; mito-PAGFP assays showed significantly reduced fusion versus WT; p.Y240 located in DRP1-binding loop 238-242; MID51 is an outer mitochondrial membrane DRP1 adaptor. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 6-8, atkins2016theroleof pages 1-2, atkins2016theroleof pages 8-9) Disease-specific in vitro functional evidence + broader mechanistic literature; moderate-high for mechanism, indirect for retinal tissue.
epidemiology Extremely rare cause of hereditary optic neuropathy; no population prevalence or incidence established. In the original French unsolved ION cohort, 2/200 cases carried MIEF1 variants (1.0%). In a larger 2023 hereditary optic neuropathy dataset, MIEF1 accounted for 2 individuals and ~1.08% of positive optic atrophy diagnoses in the relevant subgroup; overall positive diagnostic rate across 2,186 probands was 30%. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 2-3, rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 1-1) Cohort-based observational evidence; moderate for rarity within referral cohorts, low for general-population frequency.
diagnosis Current diagnosis relies on ophthalmic phenotyping plus molecular testing after exclusion of more common optic neuropathy causes; expanded gene panels improve detection of rare genes like MIEF1. In both cases: normal retina, pale moderately excavated optic discs, abnormal VEP; Patient 2 had OCT evidence of RNFL collapse in all quadrants. Negative/normal workup included OPA1/OPA3/WFS1 and primary LHON mtDNA mutations, SNP array (no CNV/chromosomal abnormality/large ROH), anti-NMO and anti-MOG serology in Patient 2, and glaucoma-compatible findings absent at presentation. Initial study panel covered 22 genes with >95% of bases at >100X coverage. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 6-8, rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 2-3) Primary clinical diagnostic evidence + cohort practice data; high for reported cases.
treatment No disease-specific therapy, clinical trial, or formal management guideline was identified for MIEF1-related optic atrophy; care is supportive. No treatment response data reported in the two cases. Reviews of inherited optic neuropathies discuss idebenone (approved for LHON in Europe), antioxidants, gene/RNA-based therapies, cysteamine, and NAD+ strategies, but not as established therapy for MIEF1 optic atrophy. (d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 11-12, d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 1-2, d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 12-14) Direct evidence absent for MIEF1; only low-strength extrapolation from broader optic neuropathy literature.
evidence gaps Major unanswered questions remain on natural history, penetrance, segregation, sex effects, modifier genes, environmental triggers, pathology outside the optic nerve, and translational models. Only 2 published disease-defining patients were identified in retrieved evidence; no validated prevalence/incidence, no mortality/prognosis statistics, no disease-specific animal/iPSC/omics studies, no preventive factors, and no interventional trials found. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 12-14) Strong evidence of knowledge scarcity; conclusions limited by ultra-rare case count.

Table: This table summarizes the verified evidence base for MIEF1/MID51-related optic atrophy, separating patient-level findings from broader mechanistic and epidemiologic evidence. It is useful for quickly identifying what is established, what is extrapolated, and what remains unknown.

1. Disease information

Definition

OPA14 is a nonsyndromic inherited optic neuropathy involving retinal ganglion-cell (RGC) degeneration, retinal nerve-fiber-layer (RNFL) loss, optic-disc pallor, visual-field constriction, and progressive visual impairment. The defining authors described it as an “unusual form of late-onset progressive optic neuropathy characterized by the initial loss of peripheral visual fields.” This contrasts with the central-to-peripheral field progression typical of most inherited optic neuropathies. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 1-3, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4)

Identifiers and synonyms

  • MONDO: MONDO:0957824, optic atrophy 14.
  • Causal target: MIEF1, Ensembl ENSG00000100335, approved name mitochondrial elongation factor 1.
  • Protein/synonyms: MID51, MiD51, mitochondrial dynamics protein 51; MIEF1-related optic neuropathy; dominant MIEF1-related optic atrophy.
  • Primary publication: Charif et al., Molecular Neurodegeneration, published February 2021; PMID 33632269; DOI and URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13024-021-00431-w. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 1-3, OpenTargets Search: optic atrophy 14-MIEF1)
  • ClinVar condition records: RCV003387453 and RCV003387454, reported through Open Targets with release date 28 October 2023. (OpenTargets Search: optic atrophy 14-MIEF1)
  • OMIM: the retrieved primary article gives MIEF1-related disease context but does not supply an OPA14 OMIM number; therefore none should be assigned from this evidence set.
  • Orphanet, ICD-10, ICD-11 and MeSH: no disease-specific entries were verified. Broader codes for optic atrophy/hereditary optic neuropathy may be used clinically, but are not specific to OPA14.

The evidence consists of an aggregated disease-level ontology record linked to a primary, patient-level research cohort—not EHR-derived population data. Open Targets aggregates literature, Genomics England and EVA/ClinVar evidence, but all four association items cited the same human paper. (OpenTargets Search: optic atrophy 14-MIEF1)

2. Etiology, risk, protective and environmental factors

Causal factor

The established cause is a germline heterozygous MIEF1 missense variant that perturbs MID51-dependent mitochondrial-network dynamics. Both reported variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. A monoallelic autosomal, non-imprinted model is recorded by Open Targets and is biologically consistent with the authors’ designation of dominant disease. However, familial segregation was not reported, so transmission versus de novo occurrence remains unresolved. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, OpenTargets Search: optic atrophy 14-MIEF1)

Genetic risk factors

Two disease-associated variants are known from the defining report:

  1. NM_019008.5:c.718T>A; p.(Tyr240Asn), p.Y240N, exon 6. It was absent from the databases queried in 2021 and affects the MID51 DRP1-binding region.
  2. NM_019008.5:c.436C>T; p.(Arg146Trp), p.R146W, exon 5; dbSNP rs778124994; reported gnomAD allele frequency 1.99 × 10⁻⁵. Arg146 is conserved with MID49, although no specific function was assigned to that region. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4)

Both were predicted damaging by SIFT and PolyPhen and disease-causing by MutationTaster. These predictions are supporting—not independently decisive—evidence. Functional assays substantially strengthen causality, but the tiny case count and absent segregation require caution in asserting penetrance or a broad genotype–phenotype relationship. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4)

No susceptibility loci, modifier genes, protective alleles, founder variants, anticipation, germline mosaicism, or carrier-frequency estimates have been established. Because this is dominant disease, “carrier” is not clinically equivalent to an unaffected recessive carrier; variant-positive relatives may instead have age-dependent or presently unquantified risk.

Non-genetic factors and gene–environment interaction

No validated toxin, infection, dietary, smoking, alcohol, occupational, sex, or lifestyle risk factor is known. Patient 2 noticed loss one month after cesarean delivery, but a temporal association in one person does not establish pregnancy or surgery as a trigger. Patient 1 had seronegative rheumatoid polyarthritis treated with leflunomide; patient 2 had hypothyroidism, hypercholesterolemia and iron deficiency. Neither pattern was interpreted as causal. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

No protective environmental factor or demonstrated gene–environment interaction exists. General avoidance of tobacco, excessive alcohol and known mitochondrial/optic-nerve toxins is biologically prudent in mitochondrial optic neuropathy, but this is extrapolation, not OPA14-specific evidence.

3. Phenotypes

Because only two patients are documented, “2/2” means the published series, not an estimated disease frequency.

  • Late-adult visual loss (symptom): 2/2 women noticed visual dysfunction in adulthood; the clinical assessments occurred at ages 55 and 47. Onset was chronic/insidious in Patient 1 before an acute worsening and apparently sudden/painless in Patient 2. Suggested HPO: Adult onset (HP:0003581), Visual impairment (HP:0000505).
  • Painless bilateral optic neuropathy/atrophy (sign): 2/2 had pale, moderately excavated optic discs and normal retina apart from Patient 2’s macular microcysts. Suggested HPO: Optic atrophy (HP:0000648), Bilateral optic atrophy where supported by the current HPO release. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)
  • Peripheral visual-field loss (functional sign): 2/2; Patient 2 had severely narrowed isopters and a bilateral superior altitudinal defect. Peripheral-to-central evolution is the phenotype’s most discriminating feature. Suggested HPO: Constricted visual fields (HP:0001133) and Visual field defect (HP:0001123). (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)
  • Reduced visual acuity (symptom/sign): progressive and severe but variable between eyes. Suggested HPO: Decreased visual acuity (HP:0007663).
  • RNFL loss (imaging sign): documented by OCT in Patient 2, with collapse in all quadrants of both eyes. Suggested HPO: Retinal nerve fiber layer thinning, subject to current HPO term verification. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)
  • Abnormal VEP (electrophysiological abnormality): strongly affected bilaterally in 2/2. Suggested HPO: Abnormal visual evoked potentials (HP:0030453).
  • Normal photoreceptor function: Patient 1’s scotopic and photopic ERGs were normal, supporting optic-nerve rather than generalized retinal disease. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)
  • Macular microcysts: present in Patient 2 only (1/2); likely secondary to severe optic neuropathy rather than defining macular dystrophy. Suggested HPO: Cystoid macular edema (HP:0011505) only if the clinical morphology satisfies that term.
  • Extraocular neurological/systemic disease: no additional neurological or neuromuscular syndrome was observed in either patient. Peripheral neuropathy was absent in Patient 1; Patient 2 had no diabetes, epilepsy or neuromuscular disorder, and normal brain MRI and ENT examination. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

Patient-level course

Patient 1: Maghreb-origin woman, age 55. A faint right-eye problem was noticed in 2002 with best visual acuity (BVA) 10/20. In 2015 she developed acute painless loss, mainly peripheral in both eyes and central in the right: right 1/20, left 18/20. VEPs were strongly abnormal; ERGs and retina were normal. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

Patient 2: Egyptian-born woman, age 47, without youthful visual complaints. One month after an uneventful cesarean delivery in 2002, painless loss began in the right eye (3/20), then left (10/20). Acuity progressed to 2/20 and 8/20 in 2012, and hand-motion and 4/20 in 2015. OCT showed bilateral RNFL collapse; IOP was 9/10 mmHg, VEPs were severely affected, and MRI was normal. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

Quality of life

No EQ-5D, SF-36, PROMIS or disease-specific quality-of-life instrument was reported. Nevertheless, hand-motion vision in one eye, marked field constriction and bilateral acuity loss imply substantial limitations in mobility, driving, reading and occupational independence. Those functional consequences are clinically plausible but were not quantitatively assessed.

4. Genetic and molecular information

Gene: MIEF1; transcript used in the report NM_019008.5; protein MID51. The retrieved evidence does not provide a verified HGNC numeric identifier, so it is not inferred here. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4)

Variant class: both are germline heterozygous missense substitutions. No frameshift, nonsense, splice, structural, somatic or chromosomal cause of OPA14 has been demonstrated. SNP-array testing in both patients found no chromosomal abnormality, copy-number variant or large homozygous interval. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

Functional consequence: the data support an altered-function mechanism rather than simple mistargeting or failure to oligomerize. Both proteins reached mitochondria and formed monomers, dimers, tetramers and rare high-molecular-weight species similarly to wild type, but failed to produce the wild-type increase in mitochondrial fusion and disrupted network dynamics. p.Y240N directly affects the DRP1-interacting loop at residues 238–242. Whether the human disease mechanism is dominant-negative, partial loss of regulatory function, or another gain-of-abnormal-function effect remains unproven. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 6-8)

No modifier-gene, methylation, histone, chromatin, repeat-expansion or disease-specific epigenetic evidence is available.

5. Environmental information

No environmental toxin, ionizing radiation, pollution, occupational exposure, lifestyle behavior or infectious agent has been causally implicated. Lyme and Treponema serology were normal in Patient 1; anti-NMO and anti-MOG tests were negative in Patient 2. These findings helped exclude acquired inflammatory/infectious mimics rather than identify causal exposures. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

6. Mechanism and pathophysiology

Disease-specific causal chain

  1. Upstream trigger: heterozygous p.Y240N or p.R146W MID51 substitution.
  2. Protein-level defect: preserved outer-mitochondrial-membrane targeting and self-oligomerization, but impaired regulation of mitochondrial fusion/fission dynamics.
  3. Organelle-level consequence: reduced mitochondrial fusion events relative to wild-type MID51 and disrupted network remodeling in live-cell mito-PAGFP assays.
  4. Cell vulnerability: RGCs and their long axons have unusually high ATP requirements and substantial unmyelinated intra-retinal segments; current expert reviews therefore regard mitochondrial energetic/dynamic failure and oxidative stress as central vulnerabilities.
  5. Tissue injury: RGC/axon degeneration produces RNFL collapse, optic-disc pallor, abnormal VEPs, peripheral field loss and eventually severe acuity loss. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 1-3, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6, d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 2-4)

MID51 biology

MID51 is an integral outer-mitochondrial-membrane DRP1 adaptor. Its N-terminal transmembrane region anchors it, while a cytosolic nucleotidyltransferase-like domain binds ADP. General mechanistic studies indicate that ADP-bound MID51 stimulates DRP1 GTPase activity and oligomerization, connecting metabolic state to fission. Expression context matters: endogenous MID51 can organize productive DRP1 fission complexes, whereas overexpression can sequester inactive DRP1 and produce apparent mitochondrial elongation/fusion. This context dependence cautions against reducing OPA14 to simply “too much” or “too little” fission. (atkins2016theroleof pages 1-2, atkins2016theroleof pages 8-9, simpson2023posttranslationalcontrolof pages 52-57)

Suggested ontology annotations include:

  • GO biological process: mitochondrial fission; mitochondrial fusion; regulation of mitochondrial organization; mitochondrial morphogenesis; mitophagy; cellular response to oxidative stress; neuron apoptotic process.
  • GO cellular component: mitochondrion; mitochondrial outer membrane; mitochondrial fission site; mitochondria-associated ER membrane.
  • GO molecular function: DRP1 binding/protein binding; adenyl ribonucleotide binding.
  • Cell Ontology: retinal ganglion cell (CL:0000740) as the primary vulnerable cell; HeLa cell is the experimental system, not a disease-relevant retinal cell.

There is no direct OPA14 evidence for immune-mediated pathology, respiratory-chain enzyme deficiency, altered metabolites/lipids, apoptosis measurements, mitophagy flux, mtDNA instability, transcriptomic signatures or RGC-specific bioenergetics. Those remain plausible downstream research areas rather than established annotations.

Molecular profiling and advanced technologies

No disease-specific RNA-seq, single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics, methylomics, CRISPR screen, patient-derived iPSC, retinal organoid or multi-omics study was identified. The only functional system was transient expression of tagged wild-type or mutant MID51 in HeLa cells, assessed by confocal microscopy, immunoprecipitation and mito-PAGFP fusion assays. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 6-8)

7. Anatomical structures affected

  • Primary organ/system: eye and visual nervous system.
  • Primary cells/tissue: RGCs and their axons; retinal nerve-fiber layer; optic-nerve head and optic nerve.
  • Laterality: bilateral in both reported patients, with asymmetric severity in Patient 1 and more symmetric progression in Patient 2.
  • Retina: structurally normal overall; Patient 2 had macular microcysts, while Patient 1 had normal photopic/scotopic ERGs.
  • Brain and other organs: no demonstrated primary involvement; Patient 2’s brain MRI was normal. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

Suggested anatomy terms: UBERON:0000966 retina, UBERON:0001785 retinal nerve fiber layer, UBERON:0000962 optic nerve, and mitochondrial outer membrane as the relevant GO cellular compartment. Exact identifiers should be release-validated before database import.

8. Temporal development

OPA14 appears to be a chronic, lifelong, progressive disorder with late-adult clinical recognition. A latent peripheral-field defect may precede perceived acuity loss by years. The reported course combines insidious early dysfunction with sudden painless subjective worsening, followed by continued progression over 10–13 years. Patient 1 preserved good left-eye acuity despite severe right-eye disease; Patient 2 progressed bilaterally to profound impairment. No remission, episodic recovery or treatment-induced improvement was documented. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

No formal staging system or progression-rate model exists. A practical observational scheme would be: early peripheral-field constriction; intermediate bilateral field/acuity involvement with disc pallor; advanced severe RNFL loss and profound visual impairment. This is a proposed clinical abstraction, not a validated scale.

9. Inheritance and population

Inheritance is classified as autosomal dominant/monoallelic, but the evidence is based on heterozygosity and functional studies rather than reported multigenerational segregation. Penetrance, age dependence, expressivity across families, de novo rate, parental mosaicism, anticipation and reproductive fitness are unknown. (OpenTargets Search: optic atrophy 14-MIEF1)

The original study found MIEF1 variants in 2/200 (1.0%) French molecularly unresolved inherited-optic-neuropathy referrals. This is a selected-cohort diagnostic fraction, not prevalence. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4)

A 2023 analysis of 2,186 hereditary-optic-neuropathy probands reported an overall molecular diagnosis in 30%; the autosomal subgroup had 451 diagnoses among 1,680 referrals, and ten major genes accounted for 96% of those diagnoses. MIEF1 appeared in only two individuals among the rare-gene findings, confirming that it is a minor diagnostic contributor. Reported “1.08%” refers to the relevant diagnosed subgroup, not the general population. (rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 2-3, rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 1-1)

Population prevalence, annual incidence, geographic distribution, ancestry-specific enrichment and sex ratio cannot be estimated. Both known patients were women—one of Maghreb origin and one born in Egypt—but n=2 cannot support a female predisposition or North African founder effect.

10. Diagnostics

Clinical evaluation

The phenotype should prompt neuro-ophthalmic assessment comprising best-corrected acuity, color vision, pupils, slit-lamp examination, IOP, dilated funduscopy, automated and/or kinetic perimetry, optic-disc/RNFL and macular OCT, and VEP. ERG is useful when retinal dystrophy is a concern. Color-vision data were not reported in the defining cases. MRI of brain/orbits with contrast and inflammatory/infectious testing should be guided by presentation, particularly for acute or asymmetric loss.

Findings supporting OPA14 are bilateral pale/excavated discs with normal IOP, marked peripheral or superior-altitudinal field loss, progressive RNFL thinning and severely abnormal VEP despite an otherwise normal retina. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

Molecular testing

  1. Exclude common mitochondrial and nuclear optic-neuropathy causes using a comprehensive hereditary optic-neuropathy panel that includes MIEF1, OPA1, OPA3, WFS1, ACO2, SPG7, MFN2, AFG3L2, RTN4IP1, TMEM126A, NR2F1, FDXR, DNM1L, MFF, and relevant mtDNA variants.
  2. Confirm candidate MIEF1 variants by an orthogonal method and perform parental/relative testing for segregation and penetrance assessment.
  3. If panel testing is negative, WES/WGS can identify newly recognized genes, intronic variants, mtDNA changes and structural variants, subject to assay validation.
  4. CMA is reasonable when syndromic features or developmental abnormalities suggest a copy-number disorder; it was negative in both OPA14 cases. Karyotyping/FISH, repeat-expansion testing and liquid biopsy are not routine OPA14 tests. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 6-8, rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 2-3)

The original 22-gene panel achieved >100× coverage for 95% of targeted bases, with Sanger fill-in of poorly covered regions. Modern broader panels or exome/genome sequencing are preferable because the 2023 cohort demonstrated extensive locus heterogeneity. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6, rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 1-1)

Differential diagnosis

Important alternatives include OPA1-dominant optic atrophy, LHON, WFS1/ACO2/MFN2/SPG7/AFG3L2-related neuropathies, glaucoma, toxic/nutritional optic neuropathy, compressive lesions, ischemic optic neuropathy, neuromyelitis-optica-spectrum disorder, MOG-associated disease and infectious optic neuropathy. Peripheral-to-central field progression, normal IOP, absent disc edema and a pathogenic functional MIEF1 variant favor OPA14, but no consensus diagnostic criteria exist. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

Screening

There is no newborn or population screening. Once a credible pathogenic familial variant is established, targeted cascade testing with pre-test counseling and baseline/serial ophthalmic assessment is appropriate. Testing asymptomatic minors requires individualized consideration because onset appears adult and no preventive therapy is proven.

11. Outcome and prognosis

The documented outcome is progressive, irreversible visual morbidity. Over approximately 13 years, Patient 2 reached hand-motion vision in the right eye and 4/20 in the left; Patient 1 reached 1/20 in the right while retaining 18/20 in the left. Thus, severe bilateral disability is possible, but asymmetry and retained useful vision can occur. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

No survival, mortality, life-expectancy, recovery-rate or validated prognostic-biomarker data exist. Neither patient had a life-limiting neurological syndrome, so available evidence supports vision-dominant morbidity rather than reduced survival. Prognostic inference from variant, onset age, OCT thickness or initial visual field is currently impossible.

12. Treatment and current implementation

No pharmacological, surgical, gene, cell, RNA or immune therapy is approved or clinically validated specifically for OPA14. No MIEF1-specific interventional trial or treatment-response series was identified. The 2021 report describes clinical progression, not a therapeutic intervention. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6)

Current real-world management is therefore supportive:

  • periodic neuro-ophthalmic follow-up with acuity, fields and OCT;
  • low-vision rehabilitation, optical/electronic aids, orientation-and-mobility training and occupational accommodations;
  • management of reversible coincident deficiencies and avoidance of recognized optic-nerve toxins;
  • genetic counseling and cascade testing;
  • psychological and social support for progressive visual disability.

Suggested NCIT-level intervention concepts include Genetic Counseling, Genetic Testing, Ophthalmologic Examination, Optical Coherence Tomography, Visual Field Test, Low Vision Rehabilitation, and Assistive Device; identifiers should be checked against the target NCIT release.

Recent 2023–2024 reviews discuss idebenone, coenzyme Q10, cysteamine/NAD⁺ strategies, AAV gene therapy, CRISPR and RNA therapies for other optic neuropathies. Idebenone is approved in Europe for LHON—not MIEF1 disease—and none should be prescribed as OPA14-directed therapy without evidence or a protocol. Experts emphasize integrating genotype and phenotype while recognizing that mitochondrial-dynamics therapeutics remain investigational. (d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 11-12, d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 1-2, d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 12-14)

13. Prevention

Primary prevention by lifestyle change, immunization or prophylactic medication is unavailable because OPA14 is genetic. Reproductive options after identification of a well-supported familial variant include genetic counseling, prenatal diagnosis and preimplantation genetic testing; these require discussion of uncertain penetrance and the limited variant evidence.

Secondary prevention consists of cascade testing and surveillance to detect presymptomatic field/RNFL changes, although no study proves that early detection alters progression. Tertiary prevention centers on low-vision care, fall-risk reduction, workplace adaptation and avoiding additional acquired optic-nerve injury. Vaccination and infectious-disease public-health measures have no disease-specific role.

14. Other species and natural disease

No naturally occurring MIEF1-related optic atrophy was identified in companion animals, livestock or wildlife, and there is no zoonotic or cross-species transmission. MIEF1/MID51 biology is evolutionarily conserved among vertebrates, but conservation alone is not evidence of a homologous veterinary disorder. NCBI Taxon identifiers relevant to future comparative work include Homo sapiens: 9606 and Mus musculus: 10090; ortholog gene IDs should be verified directly in the current NCBI Gene release before import.

15. Model organisms and research models

The disease-defining model was transfected HeLa cells, not an organismal or retinal model. Tagged p.Y240N and p.R146W proteins were tested for mitochondrial localization, oligomerization and fusion/network behavior by live-cell confocal microscopy and mito-PAGFP. This model provides strong evidence for variant-dependent organelle dysfunction but cannot reproduce RGC identity, optic-nerve architecture, age-dependent penetrance, visual-field loss or long-term neurodegeneration. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4, charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 6-8)

No OPA14-specific knock-in/knockout mouse, rat, zebrafish, Drosophila, C. elegans, yeast, patient fibroblast, iPSC-RGC or retinal organoid model was identified. Priority models are heterozygous p.Y240N and p.R146W knock-in animals and patient-derived iPSC-RGCs, with endpoints including DRP1 recruitment, mitochondrial transport/fission/fusion, mitophagy, ATP/ROS, axonal survival, RNFL thickness and visual function.

Recent developments and expert interpretation

The principal post-discovery development is diagnostic rather than therapeutic. The 2023, 2,186-proband study showed that comprehensive sequencing produces a 30% overall diagnostic rate, while MIEF1 remains among the individually rare contributors; this supports retaining MIEF1 on broad optic-neuropathy panels rather than using it as first-line single-gene testing. (rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 2-3, rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 1-1)

A 2024 review reinforced high energetic demand, mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress as central to RGC vulnerability and highlighted genotype–phenotype integration and emerging molecular therapies. None of those advances has yet produced an OPA14-specific intervention. (d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 11-12, d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 1-2, d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 2-4)

Knowledge-base confidence statement

High confidence: MIEF1 association; the two reported variants and patient phenotypes; bilateral late-onset peripheral-field-predominant optic neuropathy; abnormal MID51 network regulation in HeLa-cell assays.

Moderate confidence: autosomal-dominant mechanism and nonsyndromic classification, because familial segregation and broader natural history remain unavailable.

Low or insufficient evidence: penetrance, population epidemiology, sex/ancestry effects, variant-specific prognosis, environmental triggers, protective factors, biochemical biomarkers, treatment, prevention of progression, advanced omics and organismal models.

Key primary-source quotation

The disease-defining abstract states: “Using targeted sequencing of genes involved in mitochondrial dynamics, we report the first heterozygous variants in MIEF1 linked to disease, which cause an unusual form of late-onset progressive optic neuropathy characterized by the initial loss of peripheral visual fields.” It further reports that the variants “do not disrupt MID51’s localization to the outer mitochondrial membrane or its oligomerization, but rather, significantly disrupt mitochondrial network dynamics.” (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 1-3)

References

  1. (OpenTargets Search: optic atrophy 14-MIEF1): Open Targets Query (optic atrophy 14-MIEF1, 1 results). Buniello, A. et al. (2025). Open Targets Platform: facilitating therapeutic hypotheses building in drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Research.

  2. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 1-3): Majida Charif, Yvette C. Wong, Soojin Kim, Agnès Guichet, Catherine Vignal, Xavier Zanlonghi, Philippe Bensaid, Vincent Procaccio, Dominique Bonneau, Patrizia Amati-Bonneau, Pascal Reynier, Dimitri Krainc, and Guy Lenaers. Dominant mutations in mief1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy. Molecular Neurodegeneration, Feb 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13024-021-00431-w, doi:10.1186/s13024-021-00431-w. This article has 20 citations and is from a highest quality peer-reviewed journal.

  3. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 4-6): Majida Charif, Yvette C. Wong, Soojin Kim, Agnès Guichet, Catherine Vignal, Xavier Zanlonghi, Philippe Bensaid, Vincent Procaccio, Dominique Bonneau, Patrizia Amati-Bonneau, Pascal Reynier, Dimitri Krainc, and Guy Lenaers. Dominant mutations in mief1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy. Molecular Neurodegeneration, Feb 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13024-021-00431-w, doi:10.1186/s13024-021-00431-w. This article has 20 citations and is from a highest quality peer-reviewed journal.

  4. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 3-4): Majida Charif, Yvette C. Wong, Soojin Kim, Agnès Guichet, Catherine Vignal, Xavier Zanlonghi, Philippe Bensaid, Vincent Procaccio, Dominique Bonneau, Patrizia Amati-Bonneau, Pascal Reynier, Dimitri Krainc, and Guy Lenaers. Dominant mutations in mief1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy. Molecular Neurodegeneration, Feb 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13024-021-00431-w, doi:10.1186/s13024-021-00431-w. This article has 20 citations and is from a highest quality peer-reviewed journal.

  5. (charif2021dominantmutationsin pages 6-8): Majida Charif, Yvette C. Wong, Soojin Kim, Agnès Guichet, Catherine Vignal, Xavier Zanlonghi, Philippe Bensaid, Vincent Procaccio, Dominique Bonneau, Patrizia Amati-Bonneau, Pascal Reynier, Dimitri Krainc, and Guy Lenaers. Dominant mutations in mief1 affect mitochondrial dynamics and cause a singular late onset optic neuropathy. Molecular Neurodegeneration, Feb 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13024-021-00431-w, doi:10.1186/s13024-021-00431-w. This article has 20 citations and is from a highest quality peer-reviewed journal.

  6. (atkins2016theroleof pages 1-2): Kathleen Atkins, Asish Dasgupta, Kuang-Hueih Chen, Jeff Mewburn, and Stephen L. Archer. The role of drp1 adaptor proteins mid49 and mid51 in mitochondrial fission: implications for human disease. Clinical science, 130 21:1861-74, Nov 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1042/cs20160030, doi:10.1042/cs20160030. This article has 142 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

  7. (atkins2016theroleof pages 8-9): Kathleen Atkins, Asish Dasgupta, Kuang-Hueih Chen, Jeff Mewburn, and Stephen L. Archer. The role of drp1 adaptor proteins mid49 and mid51 in mitochondrial fission: implications for human disease. Clinical science, 130 21:1861-74, Nov 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1042/cs20160030, doi:10.1042/cs20160030. This article has 142 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

  8. (rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 2-3): Aude Rocatcher, Valérie Desquiret-Dumas, Majida Charif, Marc Ferré, Philippe Gohier, Delphine Mirebeau-Prunier, Christophe Verny, Dan Milea, Guy Lenaers, Catherine Vignal, Cédric Lamirel, Rabih Hage, Hélène Dollfus, Isabelle Meunier, Xavier Zanlonghi, Valérie Touitou, Pierre Lebranchu, Sylvie Odent, Caroline Froment Tilikete, Luc Jeanjean, Sabine Defoort-Dhellemmes, Isabelle Drumare-Bouvet, Vasily Smirnov, Catherine Vincent-Delorme, Damien Biotti, Fanny Varenne, Patrick Calvas, Nicolas Chassaing, Mickael Cohen, Christophe Orssaud, Fanny Mochel, Agathe Roubertie, Annick Toutain, Frédéric Pollet-Villard, Marie Noelle Bonnet Dupeyron, Céline Boulicot, Béatrice Cochener, Alice Goldenberg, Marie Line Jacquemont, Christine Francannet, Dominique Bonneau, Pascal Reynier, and Patrizia Amati-Bonneau. The top 10 most frequently involved genes in hereditary optic neuropathies in 2186 probands. Brain : a journal of neurology, 146:455-460, Nov 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awac395, doi:10.1093/brain/awac395. This article has 53 citations.

  9. (rocatcher2023thetop10 pages 1-1): Aude Rocatcher, Valérie Desquiret-Dumas, Majida Charif, Marc Ferré, Philippe Gohier, Delphine Mirebeau-Prunier, Christophe Verny, Dan Milea, Guy Lenaers, Catherine Vignal, Cédric Lamirel, Rabih Hage, Hélène Dollfus, Isabelle Meunier, Xavier Zanlonghi, Valérie Touitou, Pierre Lebranchu, Sylvie Odent, Caroline Froment Tilikete, Luc Jeanjean, Sabine Defoort-Dhellemmes, Isabelle Drumare-Bouvet, Vasily Smirnov, Catherine Vincent-Delorme, Damien Biotti, Fanny Varenne, Patrick Calvas, Nicolas Chassaing, Mickael Cohen, Christophe Orssaud, Fanny Mochel, Agathe Roubertie, Annick Toutain, Frédéric Pollet-Villard, Marie Noelle Bonnet Dupeyron, Céline Boulicot, Béatrice Cochener, Alice Goldenberg, Marie Line Jacquemont, Christine Francannet, Dominique Bonneau, Pascal Reynier, and Patrizia Amati-Bonneau. The top 10 most frequently involved genes in hereditary optic neuropathies in 2186 probands. Brain : a journal of neurology, 146:455-460, Nov 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awac395, doi:10.1093/brain/awac395. This article has 53 citations.

  10. (d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 11-12): Fabiana D’Esposito, Marco Zeppieri, Maria Francesca Cordeiro, Matteo Capobianco, Alessandro Avitabile, Giuseppe Gagliano, Mutali Musa, Piero Barboni, and Caterina Gagliano. Insights on the genetic and phenotypic complexities of optic neuropathies. Genes, 15(12):1559, Nov 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15121559, doi:10.3390/genes15121559. This article has 12 citations.

  11. (d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 1-2): Fabiana D’Esposito, Marco Zeppieri, Maria Francesca Cordeiro, Matteo Capobianco, Alessandro Avitabile, Giuseppe Gagliano, Mutali Musa, Piero Barboni, and Caterina Gagliano. Insights on the genetic and phenotypic complexities of optic neuropathies. Genes, 15(12):1559, Nov 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15121559, doi:10.3390/genes15121559. This article has 12 citations.

  12. (d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 12-14): Fabiana D’Esposito, Marco Zeppieri, Maria Francesca Cordeiro, Matteo Capobianco, Alessandro Avitabile, Giuseppe Gagliano, Mutali Musa, Piero Barboni, and Caterina Gagliano. Insights on the genetic and phenotypic complexities of optic neuropathies. Genes, 15(12):1559, Nov 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15121559, doi:10.3390/genes15121559. This article has 12 citations.

  13. (d’esposito2024insightsonthe pages 2-4): Fabiana D’Esposito, Marco Zeppieri, Maria Francesca Cordeiro, Matteo Capobianco, Alessandro Avitabile, Giuseppe Gagliano, Mutali Musa, Piero Barboni, and Caterina Gagliano. Insights on the genetic and phenotypic complexities of optic neuropathies. Genes, 15(12):1559, Nov 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15121559, doi:10.3390/genes15121559. This article has 12 citations.

  14. (simpson2023posttranslationalcontrolof pages 52-57): Post-translational control of mitochondria by Fbxo7 in Parkinson's disease This article has 0 citations.

Artifacts

Reference Validation

Checked with linkml-reference-validator 0.2.1.

Outcome Count
References checked 5
Resolved 5
Unresolved (possible confabulation) 0
Unverifiable 0
References weighed for topical relevance 5
On topic 5
Off topic 0

All extracted references resolved successfully.

Term Validation

Checked with linkml-term-validator 0.4.5, through the ols: adapter.

Outcome Count
Terms checked 13
Resolved 13
Unresolved (possible confabulation) 0
Obsolete 0
Unverifiable 0
Terms whose name was checked 2
Terms named correctly 0
Terms named as a different term 1
Terms whose name is worth a second look 1

Terms the report names something else

These identifiers resolve, so nothing about them looks wrong, and the ontology calls them something unrelated to what the report calls them. That usually means the identifier is not the one the sentence needs:

  • MONDO:0957824 (3 mentions) - the report calls it "if available"; MONDO calls it optic atrophy 14

Terms whose name is worth a second look

The report's name for these is recognisably related to the term's own name without being one of them. A loose paraphrase reads the same way as a citation of the wrong sibling term - and so does a related synonym, which the ontology records precisely because it names something adjacent rather than the same thing - so these are listed rather than judged:

  • CL:0000740 (1 mention) - the report calls it "Cell Ontology: retinal ganglion cell"; CL calls it retinal ganglion cell