Literature DB >> 15555525

How genetic is school myopia?

Ian Morgan1, Kathryn Rose.   

Abstract

Myopia is of diverse aetiology. A small proportion of myopia is clearly familial, generally early in onset and of high level, with defined chromosomal localisations and in some cases, causal genetic mutations. However, in economically developed societies, most myopia appears during childhood, particularly during the school years. The chromosomal localisations characterised so far for high familial myopia do not seem to be relevant to school myopia. Family correlations in refractive error and axial length are consistent with a genetic contribution to variations in school myopia, but potentially confound shared genes and shared environments. High heritability values are obtained from twin studies, but rest on contestable assumptions, and require further critical analysis, particularly in view of the low heritability values obtained from parent-offspring correlations where there has been rapid environmental change between generations. Since heritability is a population-specific parameter, the values obtained on twins cannot be extrapolated to define the genetic contribution to variation in the general population. In addition, high heritability sets no limit to the potential for environmentally induced change. There is in fact strong evidence for rapid, environmentally induced change in the prevalence of myopia, associated with increased education and urbanisation. These environmental impacts have been found in all major branches of the human family, defined in modern molecular terms, with the exception of the Pacific Islanders, where the evidence is too limited to draw conclusions. The idea that populations of East Asian origin have an intrinsically higher prevalence of myopia is not supported by the very low prevalence reported for them in rural areas, and by the high prevalence of myopia reported for Indians in Singapore. A propensity to develop myopia in "myopigenic" environments thus appears to be a common human characteristic. Overall, while there may be a small genetic contribution to school myopia, detectable under conditions of low environmental variation, environmental change appears to be the major factor increasing the prevalence of myopia around the world. There is, moreover, little evidence to support the idea that individuals or populations differ in their susceptibility to environmental risk factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15555525     DOI: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2004.06.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res        ISSN: 1350-9462            Impact factor:   21.198


  179 in total

1.  Protective effects of high ambient lighting on the development of form-deprivation myopia in rhesus monkeys.

Authors:  Earl L Smith; Li-Fang Hung; Juan Huang
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 2.  Myopia progression rates in urban children wearing single-vision spectacles.

Authors:  Leslie Donovan; Padmaja Sankaridurg; Arthur Ho; Thomas Naduvilath; Earl L Smith; Brien A Holden
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.973

3.  Prediction of Juvenile-Onset Myopia.

Authors:  Karla Zadnik; Loraine T Sinnott; Susan A Cotter; Lisa A Jones-Jordan; Robert N Kleinstein; Ruth E Manny; J Daniel Twelker; Donald O Mutti
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 7.389

4.  Prevalence of refractive errors in school-age children in Burkina Faso.

Authors:  Rosario G Anera; José Ramón Jiménez; Margarita Soler; M Angustias Pérez; Raimundo Jiménez; Juan C Cardona
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 5.  INVOLVEMENT OF MULTIPLE MOLECULAR PATHWAYS IN THE GENETICS OF OCULAR REFRACTION AND MYOPIA.

Authors:  Robert Wojciechowski; Ching-Yu Cheng
Journal:  Retina       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 4.256

6.  Progressive-addition lenses versus single-vision lenses for slowing progression of myopia in children with high accommodative lag and near esophoria.

Authors: 
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-04-25       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  Comparison of myopia progression between children wearing three types of orthokeratology lenses and children wearing single-vision spectacles.

Authors:  Yo Nakamura; Osamu Hieda; Isao Yokota; Satoshi Teramukai; Chie Sotozono; Shigeru Kinoshita
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 8.  Myopia onset and progression: can it be prevented?

Authors:  Andrea Russo; Francesco Semeraro; Mario R Romano; Rodolfo Mastropasqua; Roberto Dell'Omo; Ciro Costagliola
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 2.031

9.  Racial variations in the prevalence of refractive errors in the United States: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis.

Authors:  Chen-Wei Pan; Barbara E K Klein; Mary Frances Cotch; Sandi Shrager; Ronald Klein; Aaron Folsom; Richard Kronmal; Steven J Shea; Gregory L Burke; Seang-Mei Saw; Tien Y Wong
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 5.258

10.  Is emmetropia the natural endpoint for human refractive development? An analysis of population-based data from the refractive error study in children (RESC).

Authors:  Ian G Morgan; Kathryn A Rose; Leon B Ellwein
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.761

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.