Ultra-wide-field fundus photography compared to ophthalmoscopy in diagnosing and classifying major retinal diseases.

To analyze the performance of ultra-wide-field (UWF) fundus photography compared with ophthalmoscopy in identifying and classifying retinal diseases. Patients examined for presumed major retinal disorders were consecutively enrolled. Each patient underwent indirect ophthalmoscopic evaluation, with scleral depression and/or fundus biomicroscopy, when clinically indicated, and mydriatic UWF fundus imaging by means of CLARUS 500™ fundus camera. Each eye was classified by a clinical grader and two image graders in the following groups: normal retina, diabetic retinopathy, vascular abnormalities, macular degenerations and dystrophies, retinal and choroidal tumors, peripheral degenerative lesions and retinal detachment and myopic alterations. 7024 eyes of new patients were included. The inter-grader agreement for images classification was perfect (kappa = 0.998, 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) = 0.997-0.999), as the two methods concordance for retinal diseases diagnosis (kappa = 0.997, 95%CI = 0.996-0.999) without statistically significant difference. UWF fundus imaging might be an alternative to ophthalmoscopy, since it allows to accurately classify major retinal diseases, widening the range of disorders possibly diagnosed with teleophthalmology. Although the clinician should be aware of the possibility that a minority of the most peripheral lesions may be not entirely visualized, it might be considered a first line diagnostic modality, in the context of a full ophthalmological examination.

Commentary on "Poor evidence for host-dependent regular RNA editing in the transcriptome of SARS-CoV-2".

Analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 transcriptome has revealed a background of low-frequency intra-host genetic changes with a strong bias towards transitions. A similar pattern is also observed when inter-host variability is considered. We and others have shown that the cellular RNA editing machinery based on ADAR and APOBEC host-deaminases could be involved in the onset of SARS-CoV-2 genetic variability. Our hypothesis is based both on similarities with other known forms of viral genome editing and on the excess of transition changes, which is difficult to explain with errors during viral replication. Zong et al. criticize our analysis on both conceptual and technical grounds. While ultimate proof of an involvement of host deaminases in viral RNA editing will depend on experimental validation, here, we address the criticism to suggest that viral RNA editing is the most reasonable explanation for the observed intra- and inter-host variability.