Fig. 6: AAV-PE restored visual function and improved vision-guided behavior in rd1 mice.

a Representative images of eye constriction in WT, rd1 and PE-treated mice. b Quantification of pupil constriction proportions in WT, rd1 and PE-treated mice. Representative data are presented as the mean ± SD, n = 6. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used for comparisons. WT group vs rd1 group, p < 0.001; rd1 group vs PE-treated group, p < 0.001; PE-treated group vs WT group, p = 0.002. **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. c Schematic representation of the light–dark transition test. Mice could shuttle between the bright and dark boxes through the aperture. Created in BioRender⁶³. d Quantification of the amount of time spent in the dark zone in the WT, rd1 and PE-treated groups. Representative data are presented as the mean ± SD, n = 6. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used for comparisons. WT group vs rd1 group, p < 0.001; rd1 group vs PE-treated group, p = 0.004; PE-treated group vs WT group, p = 0.046. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. e Schematic representation of the visual cliff test. Created in BioRender⁶⁴. f Representative traveling trajectories (above) and heatmap recordings for time spent in distinct regions of the whole platform (below) in the WT, rd1 and PE-treated groups. g Quantification of the amount of time spent on the cliff side by WT, rd1 and PE-treated mice. Representative data are presented as the mean ± SD, n = 6. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used for comparisons. WT group vs rd1 group, p < 0.001; rd1 group vs PE-treated group, p = 0.036; PE-treated group vs WT group, p = 0.015. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.