Jelle Vehof1, Bin Wang2, Diana Kozareva1, Pirro G Hysi1, Harold Snieder2, Christopher J Hammond3. 1. Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom Department of Ophthalmology, King's College London, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We estimated the relative importance of genes and environment in dry eye disease (DED) using a classic twin study. METHODS: A large sample of 3930 female monozygotic and dizygotic twins from the UK Adult Twin Registry (TwinsUK) was questioned about the presence of a DED diagnosis and about DED symptoms in the preceding 3 months. In addition, a subset of 606 twins was examined for several dry eye signs. Genetic and environmental effects were estimated using maximum likelihood structural equation modeling. RESULTS: All DED outcome variables showed higher correlation in monozygotic twin pairs than in dizygotic twin pairs, suggesting genes have a contributory role in DED. The DED symptoms showed a heritability of 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18%-40%). A clinician's diagnosis of DED with concurrent use of artificial tears showed a heritability of 41% (95% CI, 26%-56%). Estimates of the heritability of DED signs were 25% (95% CI, 7%-42%) for interblink interval, 58% (95% CI, 43%-70%) for Schirmer value, 40% (95% CI, 25%-53%) for tear osmolarity, and 78% (95% CI, 59%-90%) for the presence of blepharitis. The unique environment explained the remainder of the variance. We found no significant heritability for tear breakup time. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic factors contribute moderately to the diagnosis, symptoms, and the signs of DED. Compared to other ocular phenotypes, the lower heritability might reflect some of the difficulties in objective phenotyping of DED in a population-based sample. However, future genetic studies are now justified and may help in unraveling the pathophysiology of DED. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
PURPOSE: We estimated the relative importance of genes and environment in dry eye disease (DED) using a classic twin study. METHODS: A large sample of 3930 female monozygotic and dizygotic twins from the UK Adult Twin Registry (TwinsUK) was questioned about the presence of a DED diagnosis and about DED symptoms in the preceding 3 months. In addition, a subset of 606 twins was examined for several dry eye signs. Genetic and environmental effects were estimated using maximum likelihood structural equation modeling. RESULTS: All DED outcome variables showed higher correlation in monozygotic twin pairs than in dizygotic twin pairs, suggesting genes have a contributory role in DED. The DED symptoms showed a heritability of 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18%-40%). A clinician's diagnosis of DED with concurrent use of artificial tears showed a heritability of 41% (95% CI, 26%-56%). Estimates of the heritability of DED signs were 25% (95% CI, 7%-42%) for interblink interval, 58% (95% CI, 43%-70%) for Schirmer value, 40% (95% CI, 25%-53%) for tear osmolarity, and 78% (95% CI, 59%-90%) for the presence of blepharitis. The unique environment explained the remainder of the variance. We found no significant heritability for tear breakup time. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic factors contribute moderately to the diagnosis, symptoms, and the signs of DED. Compared to other ocular phenotypes, the lower heritability might reflect some of the difficulties in objective phenotyping of DED in a population-based sample. However, future genetic studies are now justified and may help in unraveling the pathophysiology of DED. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
Authors: Anat Galor; William Feuer; David J Lee; Hermes Florez; David Carter; Bozorgmehr Pouyeh; William J Prunty; Victor L Perez Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Gary N Foulks; Kelly K Nichols; Anthony J Bron; Edward J Holland; Marguerite B McDonald; J Daniel Nelson Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Steven Boker; Michael Neale; Hermine Maes; Michael Wilde; Michael Spiegel; Timothy Brick; Jeffrey Spies; Ryne Estabrook; Sarah Kenny; Timothy Bates; Paras Mehta; John Fox Journal: Psychometrika Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Jelle Vehof; Diana Kozareva; Pirro G Hysi; Juliette Harris; Ayrun Nessa; Frances K Williams; David L H Bennett; Steve B McMahon; Samantha J Fahy; Kenan Direk; Tim D Spector; Christopher J Hammond Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Mark D P Willcox; Pablo Argüeso; Georgi A Georgiev; Juha M Holopainen; Gordon W Laurie; Tom J Millar; Eric B Papas; Jannick P Rolland; Tannin A Schmidt; Ulrike Stahl; Tatiana Suarez; Lakshman N Subbaraman; Omür Ö Uçakhan; Lyndon Jones Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Ashley M Crane; Roy C Levitt; Elizabeth R Felix; Konstantinos D Sarantopoulos; Allison L McClellan; Anat Galor Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Victoria S Chang; Terri P Rose; Carol L Karp; Roy C Levitt; Constantine Sarantopoulos; Anat Galor Journal: Eye Contact Lens Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 3.152
Authors: Anat Galor; Leslie Small; William Feuer; Roy C Levitt; Konstantinos D Sarantopoulos; Gil Yosipovitch Journal: Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc Date: 2018-01-17