4.6 Article

Heritability of risk factors for primary open-angle glaucoma: The beaver dam eye study

期刊

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.03-0516

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [P41RR003655] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R03EY013438] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NCRR NIH HHS [RR03655] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NEI NIH HHS [EY06594, EY13438] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To investigate the family aggregation and heritability of risk indicators of primary open-angle glaucoma. METHODS. During the baseline examination of the Beaver Dam Eye Study, standardized measurements of intraocular pressure were performed with a Goldmann applanation tonometer. Stereoscopic photographs of the optic discs were taken of both eyes of each study participant. The eyes were graded for the size of the optic disc and cup according to a standardized protocol, with graders masked to other subject characteristics. Family members who had participated in the examination phase were identified. RESULTS. Correlations in sibling pairs (n = 1136), parent- child pairs (n = 514), and cousin pairs (n = 1807) for intraocular pressure were 0.17, 0.18, and 0.12, respectively and were all statistically significant, whereas the spouse pair correlation was not. Correlations for sibling, parent- child, and avuncular pairs were higher for vertical optic disc, vertical optic cup, and vertical cup-to-disc ratio than for intraocular pressure. Heritability estimates were 0.36, 0.55, 0.57, and 0.48 for intraocular pressure, optic cup diameter, optic disc diameter, and cup-to-disc ratio, respectively. Correlations for the optic disc parameters were compatible with the amount of gene sharing in relative pairs of different degrees. CONCLUSIONS. Risk indicators of open-angle glaucoma correlate highly in families, and the patterns are consistent with the hypothesis of genetic determinants of these factors.

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