Marina Green-Gomez1, Paul S Bernstein2, Christine A Curcio3, Rachel Moran1, Warren Roche1, John M Nolan1. 1. Nutrition Research Centre Ireland, School of Health Science, Carriganore House, Waterford Institute of Technology, West Campus, Waterford, Ireland. 2. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is essential to have an appropriate measure to assess macular pigment (MP) that can provide an accurate, valid, and reliable representation of the MP within the macula. The aim of this study was to describe and introduce MP optical volume (MPOV) as an optimal value for reporting MP. METHODS: Three hundred ninety-three subjects were analyzed using the Heidelberg Spectralis with the investigational MP optical density (MPOD) module to measure MPOV and MPOD at four foveal eccentricities (0.23°, 0.51°, 0.98°, 1.76° [7° as reference point]). Lutein (L) and zeaxanthin (Z) dietary intake and serum concentrations were evaluated. RESULTS: MPOV mean was 5094 (95%CI, 4877-5310); range: 527 to 10,652. MPOV was inversely correlated with body mass index and positively correlated with education (r = -0.156, P = 0.002 and r = 0.124, P = 0.014, respectively). Serum concentrations of L and Z were positively correlated with MPOV (r = 0.422, P < 0.001 and r = 0.285, P < 0.001, respectively). MPOV was positively correlated to MPOD at all measured eccentricities, with the strongest agreement at 1.76° (r = 0.906, P < 0.001). Serum concentrations of L and Z, BMI, education, and age (P < 0.001) were found to be significant predictors of MPOV. CONCLUSIONS: The Spectralis MPOV measurement provided a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of the MP profile. The Spectralis MPOV should be considered a preferred metric for the assessment of MP. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Applying a standardized method for the assessment and report of MP will allow to fully derive meaning from observational studies and to successfully implement this MP measurement technique in research and clinical settings. Copyright 2019 The Authors.
PURPOSE: It is essential to have an appropriate measure to assess macular pigment (MP) that can provide an accurate, valid, and reliable representation of the MP within the macula. The aim of this study was to describe and introduce MP optical volume (MPOV) as an optimal value for reporting MP. METHODS: Three hundred ninety-three subjects were analyzed using the Heidelberg Spectralis with the investigational MP optical density (MPOD) module to measure MPOV and MPOD at four foveal eccentricities (0.23°, 0.51°, 0.98°, 1.76° [7° as reference point]). Lutein (L) and zeaxanthin (Z) dietary intake and serum concentrations were evaluated. RESULTS: MPOV mean was 5094 (95%CI, 4877-5310); range: 527 to 10,652. MPOV was inversely correlated with body mass index and positively correlated with education (r = -0.156, P = 0.002 and r = 0.124, P = 0.014, respectively). Serum concentrations of L and Z were positively correlated with MPOV (r = 0.422, P < 0.001 and r = 0.285, P < 0.001, respectively). MPOV was positively correlated to MPOD at all measured eccentricities, with the strongest agreement at 1.76° (r = 0.906, P < 0.001). Serum concentrations of L and Z, BMI, education, and age (P < 0.001) were found to be significant predictors of MPOV. CONCLUSIONS: The Spectralis MPOV measurement provided a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of the MP profile. The Spectralis MPOV should be considered a preferred metric for the assessment of MP. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Applying a standardized method for the assessment and report of MP will allow to fully derive meaning from observational studies and to successfully implement this MP measurement technique in research and clinical settings. Copyright 2019 The Authors.
Authors: John M Nolan; Ekaterina Loskutova; Alan N Howard; Rachel Moran; Riona Mulcahy; Jim Stack; Maggie Bolger; Jessica Dennison; Kwadwo Owusu Akuffo; Niamh Owens; David I Thurnham; Stephen Beatty Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Kwadwo Owusu Akuffo; Stephen Beatty; Tunde Peto; Jim Stack; Jim Stringham; David Kelly; Irene Leung; Laura Corcoran; John M Nolan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Paul S Bernstein; Binxing Li; Preejith P Vachali; Aruna Gorusupudi; Rajalekshmy Shyam; Bradley S Henriksen; John M Nolan Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Jirayu Tanprasertsuk; Emily S Mohn; Nirupa R Matthan; Alice H Lichtenstein; Kathryn Barger; Rohini Vishwanathan; Mary Ann Johnson; Leonard W Poon; Elizabeth J Johnson Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Almut Bindewald-Wittich; Joanna Dolar-Szczasny; Sandrine H Kuenzel; Leon von der Emde; Maximilian Pfau; Robert Rejdak; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Thomas Ach; Jens Dreyhaupt; Frank G Holz Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Deepayan Kar; Mark E Clark; Thomas A Swain; Gerald McGwin; Jason N Crosson; Cynthia Owsley; Kenneth R Sloan; Christine A Curcio Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Grant A Rutledge; Steven G Pratt; Stuart P Richer; Byki Huntjens; C Blake Perry; Gunilla Pratt; Carla Podella Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 2.209