Mohamed Dirani1, Sri N Shekar, Paul N Baird. 1. Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. dirani@unimelb.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Axial length has been shown to explain up to 50% of the total variance in refraction, with axial length and refraction having a major genetic component. However, no study has attempted to determine whether the correlation between axial length and refraction is explained by shared genetic or environmental factors. METHODS: All twins from Victoria aged 18 years or older were invited to participate in the Genes in Myopia (GEM) twin study through the Australian Twin Registry (ATR). Each twin completed a general questionnaire and underwent dilated objective refraction assessment and measurement of axial length. RESULTS: A total of 612 twin pairs (1224 twins) aged from 18 to 86 years were examined in the GEM twin study. Axial length correlated negatively with refraction (r = -0.64 in the men, r = -0.68 in the women; P < 0.01). The sex limitation ADE (A, additive genetic; D, dominant genetic; E, unique environmental factors) model provided the best-fit genetic model for both measures. Of the variation in spherical equivalence in both the men and the women, approximately 50% were due to genetic factors influencing axial length. CONCLUSIONS: From these findings, it is likely that axial length and refraction share common genes in their etiology. The GEM twin study has provided a basis and direction for future research into identifying the gene(s) in axial length that will ultimately improve our understanding of the etiology of refractive error, particularly myopia.
PURPOSE: Axial length has been shown to explain up to 50% of the total variance in refraction, with axial length and refraction having a major genetic component. However, no study has attempted to determine whether the correlation between axial length and refraction is explained by shared genetic or environmental factors. METHODS: All twins from Victoria aged 18 years or older were invited to participate in the Genes in Myopia (GEM) twin study through the Australian Twin Registry (ATR). Each twin completed a general questionnaire and underwent dilated objective refraction assessment and measurement of axial length. RESULTS: A total of 612 twin pairs (1224 twins) aged from 18 to 86 years were examined in the GEM twin study. Axial length correlated negatively with refraction (r = -0.64 in the men, r = -0.68 in the women; P < 0.01). The sex limitation ADE (A, additive genetic; D, dominant genetic; E, unique environmental factors) model provided the best-fit genetic model for both measures. Of the variation in spherical equivalence in both the men and the women, approximately 50% were due to genetic factors influencing axial length. CONCLUSIONS: From these findings, it is likely that axial length and refraction share common genes in their etiology. The GEM twin study has provided a basis and direction for future research into identifying the gene(s) in axial length that will ultimately improve our understanding of the etiology of refractive error, particularly myopia.
Authors: Candelaria Vergara; Samantha M Bomotti; Cristian Valencia; Barbara E K Klein; Kristine E Lee; Ronald Klein; Alison P Klein; Priya Duggal Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Ching-Yu Cheng; Maria Schache; M Kamran Ikram; Terri L Young; Jeremy A Guggenheim; Veronique Vitart; Stuart MacGregor; Virginie J M Verhoeven; Veluchamy A Barathi; Jiemin Liao; Pirro G Hysi; Joan E Bailey-Wilson; Beate St Pourcain; John P Kemp; George McMahon; Nicholas J Timpson; David M Evans; Grant W Montgomery; Aniket Mishra; Ya Xing Wang; Jie Jin Wang; Elena Rochtchina; Ozren Polasek; Alan F Wright; Najaf Amin; Elisabeth M van Leeuwen; James F Wilson; Craig E Pennell; Cornelia M van Duijn; Paulus T V M de Jong; Johannes R Vingerling; Xin Zhou; Peng Chen; Ruoying Li; Wan-Ting Tay; Yingfeng Zheng; Merwyn Chew; Kathryn P Burdon; Jamie E Craig; Sudha K Iyengar; Robert P Igo; Jonathan H Lass; Emily Y Chew; Toomas Haller; Evelin Mihailov; Andres Metspalu; Juho Wedenoja; Claire L Simpson; Robert Wojciechowski; René Höhn; Alireza Mirshahi; Tanja Zeller; Norbert Pfeiffer; Karl J Lackner; Thomas Bettecken; Thomas Meitinger; Konrad Oexle; Mario Pirastu; Laura Portas; Abhishek Nag; Katie M Williams; Ekaterina Yonova-Doing; Ronald Klein; Barbara E Klein; S Mohsen Hosseini; Andrew D Paterson; Kari-Matti Makela; Terho Lehtimaki; Mika Kahonen; Olli Raitakari; Nagahisa Yoshimura; Fumihiko Matsuda; Li Jia Chen; Chi Pui Pang; Shea Ping Yip; Maurice K H Yap; Akira Meguro; Nobuhisa Mizuki; Hidetoshi Inoko; Paul J Foster; Jing Hua Zhao; Eranga Vithana; E-Shyong Tai; Qiao Fan; Liang Xu; Harry Campbell; Brian Fleck; Igor Rudan; Tin Aung; Albert Hofman; André G Uitterlinden; Goran Bencic; Chiea-Chuen Khor; Hannah Forward; Olavi Pärssinen; Paul Mitchell; Fernando Rivadeneira; Alex W Hewitt; Cathy Williams; Ben A Oostra; Yik-Ying Teo; Christopher J Hammond; Dwight Stambolian; David A Mackey; Caroline C W Klaver; Tien-Yin Wong; Seang-Mei Saw; Paul N Baird Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Katie M Williams; Pirro G Hysi; Ekaterina Yonova-Doing; Omar A Mahroo; Harold Snieder; Christopher J Hammond Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jeremy A Guggenheim; Xin Zhou; David M Evans; Nicholas J Timpson; George McMahon; John P Kemp; Beate St Pourcain; Kate Northstone; Susan M Ring; Qiao Fan; Tien-Yin Wong; Ching Yu Cheng; Chiea Chuen Khor; Tin Aung; Seang Mei Saw; Cathy Williams Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 4.799