4.7 Article

Prevalence of Congenital Color Vision Deficiency in Southern Taiwan and Detection of Female Carriers by Visual Pigment Gene Analysis

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms242015247

关键词

color vision deficiencies; visual pigment genes; prevalence; proton carrier; deutan carrier; polymerase chain reaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the prevalence of color vision deficiencies in Taiwanese students and identified female carriers through molecular analysis of visual pigment genes. The prevalence of congenital red-green color vision deficiency was 3.46% in males and 0.14% in females. Among randomly selected females, 8.8% were carriers of CVD.
This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of color vision deficiencies (CVDs) and determine whether carriers could be detected by analyzing the visual pigment genes. Materials and Methods: The data of students who underwent routine CVD screening using the Ishihara color test in Kaohsiung, Southern Taiwan were analyzed. Furthermore, the DNA samples of 80 randomly selected females and four obligate carriers were analyzed. The most upstream genes, downstream genes, and the most downstream genes in the red/green pigment gene arrays were amplified separately using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and exon 5 of each gene was analyzed. The prevalence of congenital red-green CVD in this study was 3.46% in males and 0.14% in females. The PCR analysis of the first gene, downstream gene, and last gene revealed normal patterns in 73 normal cases. Seven unusual patterns were detected in two proton carriers and five deutan carriers. Among the randomly selected females, 8.8% (7/80) were CVD carriers. The prevalence of CVD among male Taiwanese students in this study was 3.46%. Female carriers of congenital CVD can be identified by molecular analysis of the visual pigment genes. The proportion of CVD carriers among the randomly selected females was 8.8%, which was slightly higher than expected and further studies are warranted.

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

4.7
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