Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Novel mutations in the RS1 gene in Japanese patients with X-linked congenital retinoschisis


X-linked congenital retinoschisis (XLRS) is an inherited retinal disorder characterized by reduced central vision and schisis of the macula and peripheral retina. XLRS is caused by mutations in the RS1 gene. We have identified 37 different mutations in the RS1 gene, including 12 novel mutations, in 67 Japanese patients from 56 XLRS families. We present clinical features of these patients in relation to the associated mutations.

X-linked congenital retinoschisis (XLRS) is an inherited retinal disorder that affects central vision and manifests in early childhood1. XLRS is the most common inherited retinal disorder; its highest reported prevalence is 14 per 10,000 individuals in Finland1. XLRS is characterized by foveal retinoschisis, which occurs in nearly 100% of patients, whereas peripheral schisis is present in 50% of XLRS patients1. Neuronal dysfunction, manifested as a reduction in the b-wave/a-wave ratio of dark-adapted electroretinograms (DA-ERGs), is also a characteristic of XLRS, although the detection rate for this sign has varied2,3. Clinical diagnosis is not easily determined in certain cases because of the wide range of phenotypes, which may include macular and retinal degeneration and secondary complications such as vitreous hemorrhage and retinal detachment; thus, genetic diagnosis is helpful.

XLRS is caused by mutations in the RS1 gene4, which encodes retinoschisin, a 24-kDa retina-specific protein secreted by photoreceptors and bipolar cells. Retinoschisin functions as a cell adhesion protein that maintains the synaptic structure of the retina5. To date, according to the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD; 2018.2 version,, 251 different mutations in this gene are known to cause XLRS. Because of variations in phenotypes among and within families, the genotype–phenotype relationship has not yet been definitively established 6,7.

We conducted a multicenter observational study at 12 institutions located throughout Japan; this study was approved by the ethics committee of each institution. Signed written informed consent was obtained from all participants or their parents.

Sixty-seven Japanese patients from 56 families with XLRS were studied (Table 1). All patients were male, and their average age was 19.1 years (range: 2 months to 57 years). XLRS was diagnosed based on retinal findings, including the presence of foveal schisis with or without peripheral schisis and a reduced b-wave/a-wave ratio on dark-adapted ERGs as well as family history1. The 56 patients included 14 patients with familial XLRS and 42 patients with sporadic XLRS. Medical records were reviewed for all patients who had been identified as carriers of mutations in the RS1 gene.

Table 1 Mutations in the RS1 gene and clinical features in patients with congenital retinoschisis

Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood using DNA extraction kits or manual extraction with ethanol. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) followed by Sanger sequencing was performed on 56 samples for six coding exons of the RS1 gene unless whole-exon deletions were detected via PCR. In brief, oligonucleotide primers for the flanking intron/untranslated region sequences were designed, and PCR was performed, followed by uni- or bidirectional sequencing depending on the quality of the PCR products. The primer sequences and annealing temperature for PCR for each exon are available on request. The other 11 samples were screened by whole-exome sequencing with at least 30× coverage for all exons. To identify sequence variations, reference sequences of RS1 (NM_000330.3) were used; variations were numbered based on the cDNA sequence, with +1 corresponding to the first nucleotide of the initiation codon (ATG).

Thirty-seven different mutations in the RS1 gene were identified in the 56 families, including 26 missense, 4 nonsense, 3 splicing, 1 deletion, 1 insertion, and 2 whole-exon deletion mutations (Table 1). Eleven point mutations were novel mutations, and 24 point mutations had previously been reported, based on the HGMD and one recent report (Table 1)8. A whole-exon deletion of exon 3 had been reported9, whereas a deletion of exons 2 and 3 has not been reported. In our study, DNA break points were not determined, and it is unknown whether the exon 3 deletion that we observed was identical to the known exon 3 deletion at the DNA level.

The frequency of the 11 novel point mutations was assessed using public domain databases. None of these variants were found in human genome variation databases for the Japanese population (the Human Genetic Variation Database (HGVD), or other population databases, such as the 1000 Genomes Project database (, the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) database (, and the 6500-exome database of the NHLBI-ESP project (ESP6500, The pathogenicity of the seven novel missense mutations was predicted in silico by nine programs and via folding energy assessments6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17. Overall, all variants were considered to be pathogenic (Table 2).

Table 2 Pathogenicity assessment of the novel missense mutations in the RS1 gene

Seven of the known mutations were detected in more than one family; in particular, p.Glu72Lys, p.Tyr89Cys, p.Arg182Cys, p.Arg102Trp, p.Arg197Cys, p.Arg200His, and p.Pro203Leu were observed in 6, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, and 2 families, respectively. These mutations have previously been reported in the same population and in other populations4,7,9. Mutation hot spots were suggested instead of founder effects as an explanation of these mutations.

Overall, the clinical findings of this study were consistent with those of earlier reports, although detailed phenotype–genotype relationships remain undetermined1,3,6,7.

Of the 109 phakic eyes for which refractive error (in spherical equivalents) was measured, there were 60 (55.0%), 5 (4.6%), and 44 (40.4%) hypermetropic, emmetropic, and myopic eyes, respectively (Table 1). For the hypermetropic eyes, the refractive error ranged from 0.25 to 10.0 diopters (D), and the average error was + 2.7 D. For the myopic eyes, the refractive error ranged from −0.125 to −7.5 D, and the average error was −1.6 D. The average difference in refractive error between the two eyes was 1.0 D for 51 patients.

For 125 eyes, the decimal best-corrected visual acuity varied from counting fingers to 1.2, with a median of 0.3. For 131 eyes for which retinal status was determined, retinoschisis was present in the macula in 110 eyes (84.0%) and in the periphery in 88 eyes (61.8%).

DA-ERGs were recorded in 104 eyes using different stimulus intensities; intensities that tended to be higher than those recommended in the standard protocol from the International Society of Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision were used for certain patients18. Negative ERGs were more frequently observed in this study (84.6%, Table 1) than in earlier studies3, likely due to the use of higher-intensity light stimuli19.

The observed retinal complications included a need for pars plana vitrectomy (N = 16); macular or retinal degeneration, including Oguchi disease-like retinal surface abnormalities (N = 6); vitreous hemorrhage (N = 5); retinal folds (N = 4); and congenital glaucoma (N = 1).

We sought to establish a possible phenotype-genotype relationship for eyes with truncation mutations (i.e., nonsense, splicing, deletion, insertion, or exon deletion mutations) as opposed to missense mutations. The newly identified mutations do not appear to produce distinct clinical phenotypes compared with reported mutations. However, patients with novel missense mutations did present at an earlier age than those with reported missense mutations (data not shown).

Foveal schisis was more frequently found in eyes with truncation mutations than in those with missense mutations (100% versus 78%, P = 0.0035, Supplemental Table 1). It is possible that nearly normal foveal structure can only be seen in eyes with missense mutations20. Peripheral schisis was found in 50% and 67% of eyes with truncation and missense mutations, respectively (P = 0.107).

Compared with eyes with missense mutations, eyes with truncation mutations showed larger b-waves (P = 0.023) and higher b/a ratios (P = 0.019) on DA-ERG, whereas no significant difference was observed for the mean a-wave amplitude (Supplemental Table 2). Differences in patient age, visual acuity, refractive error, and light stimulus settings for DA-ERGs were not significant.

Vincent et al.20 reported that truncation mutations were associated with poor visual acuity and a higher probability of a b/a ratio < 1.0. Our data yielded contradictory results, with higher b-wave amplitude and a greater b/a ratio in eyes with truncation mutations than in eyes with missense mutations. One possible reason for this discrepancy is that the patients with truncation mutations presented at a younger age, which tends to be associated with better preservation of ERG findings21. Nonetheless, our study implies that it will be difficult to determine a phenotype–genotype relationship using ERGs.

This study has limitations. Because of the retrospective nature of this investigation, in which only mutation-proven cases were selected, the identification rate of the RS1 gene in XLRS has not been determined. A history of clinical findings, including vitreous hemorrhages, may have been missed in certain cases due to only reviewing medical records.

In summary, this study was the largest survey of patients with mutations in the RS1 gene in the Japanese population. The progress of gene therapy for XLRS has reached the clinical trial stage, and exact genetic determinations for each patient could lead to more efficient future treatments22.

HGV database

The relevant data from this Data Report are hosted at the Human Genome Variation Database at


  1. 1.

    George, N. D., Yates, J. R. & Moore, A. T. X linked retinoschisis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 79, 697–702 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Khan, N. W., Jamison, J. A., Kemp, J. A. & Sieving, P. A. Analysis of photoreceptor function and inner retinal activity in juvenile X-linked retinoschisis. Vision. Res. 41, 3931–3942 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Renner, A. B. et al. ERG variability in X-linked congenital retinoschisis patients with mutations in the RS1 gene and the diagnostic importance of fundus autofluorescence and OCT. Doc. Ophthalmol. 116, 97–109 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sauer, C. G. et al. Positional cloning of the gene associated with X-linked juvenile retinoschisis. Nat. Genet. 17, 164–170 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wu, W. W. & Molday, R. S. Defective discoidin domain structure, subunit assembly, and endoplasmic reticulum processing of retinoschisin are primary mechanisms responsible for X-linked retinoschisis. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 28139–28146 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Sergeev, Y. V. et al. Molecular modeling of retinoschisin with functional analysis of pathogenic mutations from human X-linked retinoschisis. Hum. Mol. Genet. 19, 1302–1313 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Shinoda, K., Ishida, S., Oguchi, Y. & Mashima, Y. Clinical characteristics of 14 japanese patients with X-linked juvenile retinoschisis associated with XLRS1 mutation. Ophthalmic Genet. 21, 171–180 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Katagiri, S. et al. Clinical features of a toddler with bilateral bullous retinoschisis with a novel RS1 mutation. Am. J. Ophthalmol. Case Rep. 5, 76–80 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Functional implications of the spectrum of mutations found in 234 cases with X-linked juvenile retinoschisis. The Retinoschisis Consortium. Hum. Mol. Genet. 7, 1185–1192 (1998).

  10. 10.

    Adzhubei, I. A. et al. A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat. Methods 7, 248–249 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Davydov, E. V. et al. Identifying a high fraction of the human genome to be under selective constraint using GERP++. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1001025 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ioannidis, N. M. et al. REVEL: an ensemble method for predicting the pathogenicity of rare missense variants. Am J Hum Genet 99, (877–885 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Jagadeesh, K. A. et al. M-CAP eliminates a majority of variants of uncertain significance in clinical exomes at high sensitivity. Nat. Genet. 48, 1581–1586 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kircher, M. et al. A general framework for estimating the relative pathogenicity of human genetic variants. Nat. Genet. 46, 310–315 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kumar, P., Henikoff, S. & Ng, P. C. Predicting the effects of coding non-synonymous variants on protein function using the SIFT algorithm. Nat. Protoc. 4, 1073–1081 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Reva, B., Antipin, Y. & Sander, C. Predicting the functional impact of protein mutations: application to cancer genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, e118 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Shihab, H. A. et al. Predicting the functional, molecular, and phenotypic consequences of amino acid substitutions using hidden Markov models. Hum. Mutat. 34, 57–65 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Robson, A. G. et al. ISCEV guide to visual electrodiagnostic procedures. Doc. Ophthalmol. 136, 1–26 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Marmor, M. F. et al. ISCEV Standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2008 update). Doc. Ophthalmol. 118, 69–77 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Vincent, A. et al. A phenotype-genotype correlation study of X-linked retinoschisis. Ophthalmology 120, 1454–1464 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bowles, K. et al. X-linked retinoschisis: RS1 mutation severity and age affect the ERG phenotype in a cohort of 68 affected male subjects. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 52, 9250–9256 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hafler, B. P. Clinical progress in inherited retinal degenerations: gene therapy clinical trials and advances in genetic sequencing. Retina 37, 417–423 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The study was supported by a Japanese Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (17K11441 to H.K.) and by the Practical Research Project for Rare/Intractable Diseases (17ek0109282h0001 to T.I.), a program of the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroyuki Kondo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kondo, H., Oku, K., Katagiri, S. et al. Novel mutations in the RS1 gene in Japanese patients with X-linked congenital retinoschisis. Hum Genome Var 6, 3 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading

  • Clinical and Genetic Characteristics of 18 Patients from 13 Japanese Families with CRX-associated retinal disorder: Identification of Genotype-phenotype Association

    • Yu Fujinami-Yokokawa
    • , Kaoru Fujinami
    • , Kazuki Kuniyoshi
    • , Takaaki Hayashi
    • , Shinji Ueno
    • , Atsushi Mizota
    • , Kei Shinoda
    • , Gavin Arno
    • , Nikolas Pontikos
    • , Lizhu Yang
    • , Xiao Liu
    • , Hiroyuki Sakuramoto
    • , Satoshi Katagiri
    • , Kei Mizobuchi
    • , Taro Kominami
    • , Hiroko Terasaki
    • , Natsuko Nakamura
    • , Shuhei Kameya
    • , Kazutoshi Yoshitake
    • , Yozo Miyake
    • , Toshihide Kurihara
    • , Kazuo Tsubota
    • , Hiroaki Miyata
    • , Takeshi Iwata
    • , Kazushige Tsunoda
    • , Toshihide Nishimura
    • , Yoshihide Hayashizaki
    • , Mineo Kondo
    • , Nobuhiro Shimozawa
    • , Masayuki Horiguchi
    • , Shuichi Yamamoto
    • , Manami Kuze
    • , Nobuhisa Naoi
    • , Shigeki Machida
    • , Yoshiaki Shimada
    • , Makoto Nakamura
    • , Takashi Fujikado
    • , Yoshihiro Hotta
    • , Masayo Takahashi
    • , Kiyofumi Mochizuki
    • , Akira Murakami
    • , Hiroyuki Kondo
    • , Susumu Ishida
    • , Mitsuru Nakazawa
    • , Tetsuhisa Hatase
    • , Tatsuo Matsunaga
    • , Akiko Maeda
    • , Kosuke Noda
    • , Atsuhiro Tanikawa
    • , Syuji Yamamoto
    • , Hiroyuki Yamamoto
    • , Makoto Araie
    • , Makoto Aihara
    • , Toru Nakazawa
    • , Tetuju Sekiryu
    • , Kenji Kashiwagi
    • , Kenjiro Kosaki
    • , Carninci Piero
    • , Takeo Fukuchi
    • , Atsushi Hayashi
    • , Katsuhiro Hosono
    • , Keisuke Mori
    • , Kouji Tanaka
    • , Koichi Furuya
    • , Keiichirou Suzuki
    • , Ryo Kohata
    • , Yasuo Yanagi
    • , Yuriko Minegishi
    • , Daisuke Iejima
    • , Akiko Suga
    • , Brian P. Rossmiller
    • , Yang Pan
    • , Tomoko Oshima
    • , Mao Nakayama
    • , Yu Teruyama
    • , Megumi Yamamoto
    • , Naoko Minematsu
    • , Hideko Sanbe
    • , Daisuke Mori
    • , Yusuke Kijima
    • , Go Mawatari
    • , Kentaro Kurata
    • , Norihiro Yamada
    • , Masayosi Itoh
    • , Hideya Kawaji
    •  & Yasuhiro Murakawa

    Scientific Reports (2020)


Quick links