CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

RP1

protein-coding gene in the species Homo sapiens

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 17, 2026
Entity authorityQ18031210 ↗
Source-derived summary

Oxygen-regulated protein 1 also known as retinitis pigmentosa 1 protein (RP1) is a protein that in humans is encoded by the RP1 gene.

Function

This gene encodes a member of the doublecortin family. The protein encoded by this gene contains two doublecortin domains that bind to microtubules and regulate microtubule polymerization. The encoded protein is a protein associated with the photoreceptor cell microtubules in the retina and is necessary for the correct stacking of outer segment discs. This protein and another retinal-specific protein, RP1L1, play essential and synergistic roles in affecting photosensitivity and outer segment morphogenesis of rod photoreceptor cells.

History

Initially named "ORP1" for its response to in vivo retinal oxygen levels (designated ORP1 for 'oxygen-regulated protein-1'), this gene was subsequently linked to autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa and was renamed RP1 for 'retinitis pigmentosa 1'.

Clinical significance

Mutations in this gene cause autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive retinitis pigmentosa. Transcript variants produced by alternative promoters and alternative splicing have been discovered that overlap with the current reference sequence and have multiple exons upstream and downstream of the current reference sequence. However, as of 2010, it is currently impossible to determine the biological effectiveness and full-length nature of certain variants.

Editorial summary

“RP1” enters the record as protein-coding gene in the species Homo sapiens. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what protein-coding, gene and species can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical orientation to terminology and classification, particularly when read beside dated observations, specimens or technical literature. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2010—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around protein-coding, gene and species.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“RP1” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, protein-coding, gene and species provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 17, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q18031210. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2010.

Critical limits

A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “RP1”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow RP1 primary sources, RP1 archive and protein-coding research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “RP1”?
  2. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
  3. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “RP1” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.