4.6 Article

Non-allergic eye rubbing is a major behavioral risk factor for keratoconus

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284454

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified male sex, eye rubbing, time of using a computer after work, and dust in the working environment as substantial risk factors for keratoconus, which affect the corneal epithelium. Gene expression analysis showed that eye rubbing may cause cellular stress and affect the phenotype of keratoconus.
Since the environmental, behavioral, and socioeconomic factors in the etiology of keratoconus (KTCN) remain poorly understood, we characterized them as features influencing KTCN phenotype, and especially affecting the corneal epithelium (CE). In this case-control study, 118 KTCN patients and 73 controls were clinically examined and the Questionnaire covering the aforementioned aspects was completed and then statistically elaborated. Selected KTCN-specific findings were correlated with the outcomes of the RNA-seq assessment of the CE samples. Male sex, eye rubbing, time of using a computer after work, and dust in the working environment, were the substantial KTCN risk factors identified in multivariate analysis, with ORs of 8.66, 7.36, 2.35, and 5.25, respectively. Analyses for genes whose expression in the CE was correlated with the eye rubbing manner showed the enrichment in apoptosis (TP53, BCL2L1), chaperon-related (TLN1, CTDSP2, SRPRA), unfolded protein response (NFYA, TLN1, CTDSP2, SRPRA), cell adhesion (TGFBI, PTPN1, PDPK1), and cellular stress (TFDP1, SRPRA, CAPZB) pathways. Genes whose expression was extrapolated to the allergy status didn't contribute to IgE-related or other inflammatory pathways. Presented findings support the hypothesis of chronic mechanical corneal trauma in KTCN. Eye-rubbing causes CE damage and triggers cellular stress which through its influence on cell apoptosis, migration, and adhesion affects the KTCN phenotype.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据