4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      IMI – Myopia Genetics Report

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The knowledge on the genetic background of refractive error and myopia has expanded dramatically in the past few years. This white paper aims to provide a concise summary of current genetic findings and defines the direction where development is needed.

          We performed an extensive literature search and conducted informal discussions with key stakeholders. Specific topics reviewed included common refractive error, any and high myopia, and myopia related to syndromes.

          To date, almost 200 genetic loci have been identified for refractive error and myopia, and risk variants mostly carry low risk but are highly prevalent in the general population. Several genes for secondary syndromic myopia overlap with those for common myopia. Polygenic risk scores show overrepresentation of high myopia in the higher deciles of risk. Annotated genes have a wide variety of functions, and all retinal layers appear to be sites of expression.

          The current genetic findings offer a world of new molecules involved in myopiagenesis. As the missing heritability is still large, further genetic advances are needed. This Committee recommends expanding large-scale, in-depth genetic studies using complementary big data analytics, consideration of gene-environment effects by thorough measurement of environmental exposures, and focus on subgroups with extreme phenotypes and high familial occurrence. Functional characterization of associated variants is simultaneously needed to bridge the knowledge gap between sequence variance and consequence for eye growth.

          Related collections

          Most cited references168

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Increased prevalence of myopia in the United States between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004.

            To compare US population prevalence estimates for myopia in 1971-1972 and 1999-2004. The 1971-1972 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey provided the earliest nationally representative estimates for US myopia prevalence; myopia was diagnosed by an algorithm using either lensometry, pinhole visual acuity, and presenting visual acuity (for presenting visual acuity > or =20/40) or retinoscopy (for presenting visual acuity -2.0 diopters [D]: 17.5% vs 13.4%, respectively [P -7.9 D: 22.4% vs 11.4%, respectively [P < .001]; < or =-7.9 D: 1.6% vs 0.2%, respectively [P < .001]). When using similar methods for each period, the prevalence of myopia in the United States appears to be substantially higher in 1999-2004 than 30 years earlier. Identifying modifiable risk factors for myopia could lead to the development of cost-effective interventional strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Epigenetics: definition, mechanisms and clinical perspective.

              A vast array of successive epigenetic modifications ensures the creation of a healthy individual. Crucial epigenetic reprogramming events occur during germ cell development and early embryogenesis in mammals. As highlighted by the large offspring syndrome with in vitro conceived ovine and bovine animals, any disturbance during germ cell development or early embryogenesis has the potential to alter epigenetic reprogramming. Therefore the complete array of human assisted reproductive technology (ART), starting from ovarian hormonal stimulation to embryo uterine transfer, could have a profound impact on the epigenetic state of human in vitro produced individuals. Although some investigators have suggested an increased incidence of epigenetic abnormalities in in vitro conceived children, other researchers have refuted these allegations. To date, multiple reasons can be hypothesized why irrefutable epigenetic alterations as a result of ART have not been demonstrated yet. Thieme Medical Publishers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
                Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci
                iovs
                Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
                IOVS
                Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
                The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
                0146-0404
                1552-5783
                February 2019
                : 60
                : 3
                : M89-M105
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [3 ]Institute for Molecular Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
                [4 ]Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
                [5 ]Centre for Eye Research Australia, Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [6 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Menzies Institute of Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
                [7 ]Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Lions Eye Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
                [8 ]School of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
                [9 ]Section of Academic Ophthalmology, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
                [10 ]Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [11 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Caroline C. W. Klaver, Erasmus Medical Center, Room Na-2808, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; c.c.w.klaver@ 123456erasmusmc.nl .

                MST and AEGH contributed equally to the work presented here and should therefore be regarded as equivalent first authors.

                VJMV and CCWK contributed equally to the work presented here and should therefore be regarded as equivalent senior authors.

                See the appendix for the members of the CREAM Consortium.

                Article
                iovs-60-03-09 IOVS-18-25965
                10.1167/iovs.18-25965
                6892384
                30817828
                e3d9e9ca-60a7-4661-bb7e-5aeb8f4576d0
                Copyright 2019 The Authors

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 12 October 2018
                : 9 January 2019
                Categories
                Special Issue

                myopia,refractive error,genetics,gwas,gxe interactions
                myopia, refractive error, genetics, gwas, gxe interactions

                Comments

                Comment on this article