February 2005
Volume 46, Issue 2
Free
Glaucoma  |   February 2005
A Genetic Contribution to Intraocular Pressure: The Beaver Dam Eye Study
Author Affiliations
  • Priya Duggal
    From the Statistical Genetics Section, Inherited Disease Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland; the
  • Alison P. Klein
    From the Statistical Genetics Section, Inherited Disease Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland; the
  • Kristine E. Lee
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin; and the
  • Sudha K. Iyengar
    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
  • Ronald Klein
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin; and the
  • Joan E. Bailey-Wilson
    From the Statistical Genetics Section, Inherited Disease Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland; the
  • Barbara E. K. Klein
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin; and the
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science February 2005, Vol.46, 555-560. doi:10.1167/iovs.04-0729
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Priya Duggal, Alison P. Klein, Kristine E. Lee, Sudha K. Iyengar, Ronald Klein, Joan E. Bailey-Wilson, Barbara E. K. Klein; A Genetic Contribution to Intraocular Pressure: The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(2):555-560. doi: 10.1167/iovs.04-0729.

      Download citation file:


      © 2016 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

purpose. To investigate a potential genetic contribution to intraocular pressure (IOP), we performed a complex segregation analysis on 2337 individuals in 620 extended pedigrees ascertained through a population-based cohort, the Beaver Dam Eye Study (BDES). IOP is a principal risk factor for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) a leading cause of blindness worldwide.

methods. Segregation analysis is an analytical method that provides statistical evidence supporting the involvement of a major gene or polygenes in a particular phenotype. Detailed medical histories and eye examinations were performed on all participants. From the two eyes, the higher IOP measurement was used as a continuous trait after adjustment for covariates. A genome-wide scan (GWS) using affected sib pair linkage analysis was performed on 218 sibling pairs.

results. In this segregation analysis the model that allowed for an unmeasured major environmental effect plus a polygenic/multifactorial effect provided the best fit and was the most parsimonious model. The lack of an adequate fit for the Mendelian single-gene models is consistent with a multifactorial model of inheritance that may include multiple genes and environmental factors that contribute to IOP. The results of the GWS yielded two novel loci as potential linkage regions for IOP on chromosomes 6 (P = 0.008) and 13 (P = 0.0007). Neither of these regions has previously been identified in GWS of POAG.

conclusions. The segregation and familial correlation analyses of IOP suggest a polygenetic component with environmental influences. The pilot linkage study further confirms the heterogeneity of IOP with the identification of two novel genetic loci.

Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is a leading cause of blindness in the world and affects 1% to 2% of the population over age 40. 1 Although the disease etiology of POAG is unclear, studies suggest that there is a genetic component to the disease. Numerous genetic loci for POAG have been mapped through linkage analyses, although they have not all been confirmed. These include regions 1q23, 2cen-q13, 3q21-q24, 8q23, 10p15-p14, and 7q35-q36, 2 3 4 5 6 identified in extended families with primarily autosomal dominant inheritance. A genome-wide sib pair linkage analysis of POAG identified suggestive linkage (lod score ≥ 2.0) to loci on chromosomes 2, 14, 17 (short arm), and 19, using 113 sibling pairs. 7 Recently, a genome-wide scan of an Afro-Caribbean population provided evidence for linkage to POAG on 2q and 10p. 8 Two loci, TIGR/myocilin (1q23) and OPTN/optineurin (10p14) have been identified 9 10 and >43 mutations have been identified in myocilin in patients with POAG. 11 These studies support POAG as a genetically heterogeneous disorder. 
Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is a principal risk factor for POAG and results in optic nerve damage. In the United States, it is estimated that 3 to 6 million people have elevated IOP and are at an increased risk for development of glaucoma. 12 The goal of this study was to investigate a potential genetic contribution to IOP, a predictor of POAG. We performed a complex segregation analysis on 2336 individuals in 620 extended pedigrees ascertained through a population-based cohort, the Beaver Dam Eye Study (BDES) in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. In addition, we performed a nonparametric genome-wide linkage analysis of 218 sibling pairs from the BDES. 
Methods
Study Population
A full description of the methods used to identify the population and a description of the participants in the BDES has been published. 13 14 From 1988 to 1990, the BDES investigators conducted baseline examinations for recruitment into the study. Eligibility requirements for participation in the study included living in the town of Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, and being 43 to 84 years of age. Of the 5924 individuals eligible to enroll, 4926 individuals participated in the baseline examination. Family relationships were ascertained from participants, and pedigrees were constructed. From 1993 to 1995, the first follow-up visit was conducted and family relationships were confirmed. Of the 5924 eligible individuals, 2783 individuals had available information on familial relationships. Of these 2783 individuals, 2331 had complete information for age, sex, systolic blood pressure measurements, treatment for IOP and complete IOP measurements. The 2331 individuals comprised 602 extended pedigrees, but due to limitations of the analysis programs, some of the pedigrees were divided to establish 620 distinct pedigrees. Institutional Review Board approval at the University of Wisconsin Medical School was granted for each phase of the study, and informed consent was obtained from study participants. The study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. 
Data Collection
IOP was measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer after instillation of a drop of fluorescein (Fluoress; Barnes-Hind Armour Pharmaceutical Co., Kankakee, IL) in each eye. Before measuring the IOP in the right eye, the tonometer was set to 10 mm Hg and the pressure was recorded only after the tonometer was moved back from the cornea. The tonometer was then reset to 10 mm Hg for measurement of the left eye. Any measurement the examiner thought was unreliable was excluded from the analysis. In addition to a full eye examination each participant also provided a detailed medical history and examination, which included information about hypertension, diabetes, and other medical conditions as well as a history of medication use. Although longitudinal eye measurements are collected, only baseline examination IOP measurements were used in this analysis. 
Statistical Methods
Preliminary Analysis.
Linear regression was used to assess potential confounding variables (SAS, ver. 8.1; SAS, Cary, NC). IOP was defined as the higher IOP measurement between each eye and was the dependent variable. Age, sex, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and treatment of IOP were considered potential confounders and were either included as covariates or adjusted for before further analysis. Familial correlations including parent-offspring, sibling, cousin, avuncular, and spouse pairs were estimated with the FCOR program of S.A.G.E. (1987; Statistical Analysis for Genetic Epidemiology). We estimated the heritability (h 2) from the adjusted sibling correlations (r), by the equation h 2 = 2r
Segregation Analysis.
The REGC program of S.A.G.E. (1987) version 3.0 was used to perform complex segregation analysis. In addition, the REGCHUNT program 15 which allows REGC to run multiple times with random starting values was used. Using the regressive models proposed by Bonney 16 17 (S.A.G.E., 1994), REGC performs segregation analysis of continuous traits. Because the BDES is a population-based survey, no ascertainment correction was necessary. 
Mendelian (autosomal dominant, autosomal codominant, and autosomal recessive), sporadic, and environmental models were used to test for a locus that influences IOP. Maximum-likelihood methods were used to estimate the parameters for each model. Each model was compared to a general, unrestricted model by using the likelihood ratio test. Models can include different discrete factors that may affect a person’s phenotype or IOP. These are called “type” 18 or “ousiotype.” 19 In the Mendelian models, type is represented by genotype, and three types are possible: AA (homozygote), AB (heterozygote), and BB (homozygote). However, in the non-Mendelian models, type may represent any transmission, including shared exposures to environmental risk factors within families. If the type frequencies are in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, then they are defined as the frequency of allele A, qA. The probability of a parent’s transmitting these discrete factors to an offspring is represented by a transmission parameter (τ). Under Mendelian transmission the τ’s are interpreted as the probability that a parent transmits the A allele to an offspring. Thus, τAA = 1, τAB = 0.5, and τBB = 0. However, when these transmission factors are fixed equal to each other, they represent an environmental model in which parental type (environmental exposure) has no effect on offspring type. 
Using the S.A.G.E. statistical program, we performed all analyses with class D models that assume, after conditioning on the parents, that the correlations among siblings are equal but that they are not completely due to common parentage. Additional familial correlations can therefore be estimated that may explain the effects of other genes (polygenic inheritance) or common environmental factors. These correlations may include spousal (ρfm), parent-offspring (ρpo), and sibling (ρss). In addition, age, sex, treatment of IOP, and SBP measurements at baseline were included as covariates in the analysis because they were considered potential confounders. The IOP measurements were initially analyzed both with and without transformation to normality by using the Box-Cox transformation. 20 However, the IOP measurements followed a normal distribution, and the data were analyzed without the need for transformation. 
Six hypotheses were tested against the likelihood of a general or unrestricted model and likelihood ratio tests, and Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) was used to select the most parsimonious model. The six hypotheses of transmission included (1) no major gene, (2) Mendelian dominant, (3) Mendelian codominant, (4) Mendelian recessive (arbitrary major gene), (5) environmental mixed model with a major environmental effect (no parent-offspring transmission) which estimates the transmission probabilities to be equal to the allele frequency, and (6) a semigeneral or τAB estimated model that estimates the parameter τAB when τAA and τBB are fixed to the Mendelian values of 1.0 and 0.0, respectively. Likelihood ratio tests were computed by −2 times the difference in lnLikelihood of the general model and a nested model. AIC is defined as −2lnL + 2(number of parameters estimated). 21 The model with the minimum AIC is the most parsimonious model. 
Pilot Linkage Analysis.
Previously, 325 individuals (263 sibling pairs) from 102 pedigrees in the BDES were selected for genotyping and linkage analysis of 345 genome-wide markers (Weber panel 8 marker set) because some members of these families were affected with age-related maculopathy (ARM). 22 Although ARM is unrelated to IOP, many individuals genotyped (218 sibling pairs within 87 pedigrees) had complete IOP and covariate measurements and could be used in a pilot genome-wide linkage analysis. 
We determined the allele frequencies of all the markers by using maximum-likelihood methods in the S.A.G.E. program FREQ (S.A.G.E., ver. 4.5). MARKERINFO (S.A.G.E., ver. 4.5) identified two sibships with Mendelian inheritance inconsistencies. These sibships were then excluded from the remaining analyses. RELTEST (S.A.G.E., ver. 4.5), RELCHECK, 23 24 and PREST 25 were used to identify potential misspecified family relationships. Based on these results, data from an additional 13 sibships were excluded. IOP was treated as a quantitative trait, and we used the higher untransformed IOP measurement in either eye, adjusted for age, sex, IOP treatment, and SBP as the dependent variable in a Haseman-Elston regression. Using GENIBD, we estimated the single point and multipoint identity by descent-sharing for the study subjects. Linkage analysis was performed with the modified Haseman-Elston regression models and the option that allows for the nonindependence of sibling pairs and uses a weighted combination of the squared trait difference and squared mean corrected trait sum (option W4) 26 26 in the model-free linkage program SIBPAL (S.A.G.E., ver. 4.5). For each marker, P-values were obtained using the asymptotic distribution of the likelihood-ratio test statistics. Each chromosome was analyzed separately. 
Results
Familial Correlation Analysis
Table 1describes the adjusted familial correlations for spousal, parent-offspring, sibling, avuncular, and cousin pairs. There was modest positive correlation between both parent-offspring (0.13) and siblings (0.15). No spousal correlation was detected (−0.09), which is consistent with an inherited disease, in which unrelated individuals are not expected to correlate. 
Segregation Analysis
The parameter estimates from the complete segregation analysis are presented in Table 2 . In our segregation analysis, the results indicate that a single distribution model with polygenic effects did not provide an adequate fit (model 1). The models that incorporated a major gene effect with additional polygenic effects (models 2, 3, and 4) also failed to provide an adequate fit to the data, and these Mendelian models were rejected when compared with the general transmission model (model 7; P < 0.0001) and the semigeneral transmission model (τAB free model 6; P < 0.0001). The environmental mixed model with τ’s equal to the allele frequency and multiple distributions (model 5) with polygenic effects provided a better fit to the data and could not be rejected (P = 0.12). However, both the environmental mixed model τ’s equal to the allele frequency and the τAB free model were highly parsimonious according to the AIC (11974.0469 and 11974.2469, respectively). 
Linkage Analysis
The results of the two-point whole-genome scan yielded two novel loci on chromosomes 6 and 13, as potential linkage regions with a threshold lod score of 1.45. Figure 1graphically depicts the two-point linkage evidence across the genome. Table 3identifies the chromosome 6 and 13 markers and the associated two-point asymptotic probabilities. We observed the strongest linkage peaks at markers D6S1027 (P = 0.008) and D13S317 (P = 0.00071), the chromosome 13 locus reaches the threshold for suggestive linkage of a complex trait. 27 Neither locus has been identified previously in genome-wide screens for POAG. We performed multipoint linkage analysis on chromosomes 6 and 13 (Figs. 2 3) . However, multipoint linkage analysis weakened any suggestion of linkage for both regions. Although two regions of interest were identified, neither region reached genome-wide significance. 
Discussion
The results of our familial correlation analysis for IOP are consistent with a genetic model of inheritance in which first-degree relatives (parent-offspring and siblings) have stronger positive correlations than extended family members. However, this is also suggestive of familial-shared environment. We estimate 30% heritability for IOP after adjustment for age, sex, IOP treatment, and SBP. Previously, we determined 36% heritability for IOP based on familial correlations adjusted for age and sex, and much greater heritability for optic cup and disc diameters (0.55 and 0.57, respectively). 28 The overall conclusions of both familial correlations are similar, although the correlations and heritability declined after the inclusion of IOP treatment and SBP, consistent with some role for common environment on the trait values and/or of genes that influence both IOP and blood pressure. These heritability estimates are similar to those for nuclear cataract (36%), 29 adjusted for age, sex, race, and smoking status, and less than those for ARM (45%). 30  
In the segregation analysis, the model that allowed for an unmeasured major environmental effect plus a polygenic/environmental effect provided the best fit to the data and was the most parsimonious model. Another version of the general model (semigeneral) commonly used to test for the presence of a major locus effect in a mixed model is one in which the τ of the A allele for AA and BB genotypes are fixed to 1.0 and 0, and the remaining parameters are unrestricted. This model was marginally rejected (P = 0.02) and highly parsimonious and yielded an estimate of the τAB transmission of 0.70, close to its Mendelian value of 0.5. All the Mendelian models tested for only a single major gene to control IOP across the spectrum of IOP values. The lack of an adequate fit for these models is consistent with a multifactorial or complex model of inheritance that may include multiple genes (at least more than one gene) and environmental factors that contribute to IOP. The conclusions of the segregation analysis are not surprising, because IOP has been associated with numerous physiological and environmental factors including SBP and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure, body mass index, hematocrit, serum glucose, glycohemoglobin, cholesterol levels, pulse, nuclear sclerosis, and season and time of day of measurement. 31 As with most genetic analyses it is difficult to account for all potential confounders because of the complexity of the genetic model and current limitations of analytical programs. However, we tried to account for those covariates that may have the greatest effect on IOP, but there may be some confounding by unaccounted for covariates. 
The inclusion of SBP as a covariate is important, because a recent study of the BDES by Klein et al. 32 determined that IOPs correlated with SBP and DBP at both baseline and 5-year follow-up. Specifically, they found that reduced systemic blood pressure was associated with reduced IOP. 
In addition, whole-genome scans for hypertension including both SBP and DBP have also indicated a polygenic inheritance with heterogeneity. 22 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Our analysis of IOP appears to be consistent with blood pressure and is suggestive that we are looking at a similar pattern of inheritance. It is plausible that IOP, like blood pressure, is heterogeneous, and there may be loci that control both the pressure in the eye and blood. 
The two regions we identified by our pilot linkage analysis, chromosomes 6 and 13, warrant further attention, especially since neither of these loci has been identified in previous genome-wide scans of POAG. The identification of two new regions for POAG may be due to the definition of IOP and the ascertainment of cases. This study analyzed the quantitative trait, IOP, compared with the dichotomous POAG previously studied in linkage analyses of glaucoma. Although elevated IOP is a key characteristic in the diagnosis of glaucoma, IOP may represent only one aspect of development of glaucoma. Further localization of these novel regions will provide greater insight into the mechanism of IOP and the contribution to POAG. In addition, the ascertainment of elevated IOP individuals in the Beaver Dam population is in contrast to some of the previous linkage studies involving individuals with POAG from highly aggregated families. The previous linkage studies selected families with well-defined cases of POAG and may have identified rare highly penetrant susceptibility alleles. The BDES involved a predominantly European-American community-based sample which ascertained all age-eligible individuals in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. Thus, it is possible this sample lacked the power to replicate the initial linkage findings for rare and highly penetrant alleles, and instead we identified more common susceptibility alleles at two potential loci that may control the variation in IOP. Finally, it is important to note that many of the previous linkage findings have not yet been replicated, nor has a gene been identified for each identified locus, and so it is likely some of these regions are not true disease loci. However, the replication of a true linkage finding can be difficult if there are multiple genes that contribute to a disease 43 as with POAG, which may help to explain the lack of replication in our study and others. 
Although we identified a strong two-point linkage signal, the strength of the signal decreased in the multipoint analysis. The weakened signal for linkage in the multipoint analysis is not surprising, since, for both chromosome 6 and 13, there is a wide distance surrounding the marker that provided the greatest linkage signal (25 cM and 28 cM, respectively). Further fine mapping in this region may identify a narrower linkage peak. A whole-genome linkage analysis is currently under way and involves the complete family structure from the BDES (2231 individuals). This should give us additional power to identify new genes or further localize novel genes that contribute to the complex traits IOP and glaucoma. 
 
Table 1.
 
Familial Correlation Analysis of IOP
Table 1.
 
Familial Correlation Analysis of IOP
Familial Pair Number of Pairs Correlation with Equal Weight to Pairs 95% CI
Spousal 80 −0.09 −0.31, 0.13
Parent-offspring 510 0.13 0.04, 0.22
Sibling 1125 0.15 0.08, 0.22
Avuncular 715 0.02 −0.07, 0.11
Cousin 1646 0.09 0.03, 0.15
Table 2.
 
Sex-Specific Segregation Analysis of Intraocular Pressure (IOP) with Eye Drops, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure
Table 2.
 
Sex-Specific Segregation Analysis of Intraocular Pressure (IOP) with Eye Drops, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure
qA τAA τAB τBB βAA βAB βBB TX Age SBP PO SS DF −2lnL P AIC
1. No major gene (no transmission)+ familial correlations (sporadic)*
 Male 1.0 11.49 11.49 11.49 4.33 0.03 0.002 0.14 0.13 6 12084.8617 <0.001 12096.8617
 Female 11.86 11.86 11.86
2. Mendelian dominant+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.21 1 0.5 0 21.37 21.37 13.99 4.14 0.01 0.005 0.17 0.12 4 12039.5707 <0.001 12047.5707
 Female 21.42 21.42 13.58
3. Mendelian codominant+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.03 1 0.5 0 −21.9 17.84 11.75 4.09 0.03 −0.001 0.13 0.10 3 12004.2755 <0.001 12010.2755
 Female 3.76 18.18 11.32
4. Mendelian recessive+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.21 1 0.5 0 21.37 13.99 13.99 4.14 0.01 0.005 0.17 0.12 4 12039.5707 <0.001 12047.5707
 Female 21.42 13.58 13.58
5. Environmental mixed model τ’s = qA+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 11.79 17.46 28.45 4.07 0.03 −0.002 0.22 0.14 3 11968.0469 0.12 11974.0469
 Female 11.38 18.36 2.56
6. τAB estimated (semigeneral)+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.93 1.0 0.70 0 11.86 17.56 28.59 3.90 0.03 −0.004 0.18 0.12 2 11970.2469 0.02 11974.2469
 Female 11.45 18.48 4.05
7. General+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.94 0.98 0.74 0.56 11.75 17.31 27.9 3.89 0.03 −0.002 0.19 0.13 11962.1624 11964.1624
 Female 11.35 18.19 2.91
Figure 1.
 
Whole-genome scan for the quantitative trait, IOP, from the baseline examination. Marker positions are from Marshfield Laboratories (Marshfield, WI).
Figure 1.
 
Whole-genome scan for the quantitative trait, IOP, from the baseline examination. Marker positions are from Marshfield Laboratories (Marshfield, WI).
Table 3.
 
Probabilities Associated with Model Free-Linkage Analyses of Markers at Chromosomes 6 and 13
Table 3.
 
Probabilities Associated with Model Free-Linkage Analyses of Markers at Chromosomes 6 and 13
Marker Name Distance (cM) P
Chromosome 6
f13a1 0 0.568698
ATA50C05 16 0.037721
D6S1959 29 0.384235
GATA163B10 40 0.82304
GGAA15B08 49 0.856078
D6S1017 56 0.769203
D6S1053 78 0.844592
D6S1031 86 0.838587
D6S1056 100 0.269214
D6S1021 111 0.071395
D6S474 117 0.168925
D6S1040 126 0.667139
D6S1009 137 0.040428
GATA184A08 147 0.546271
GATA165G02 156 0.20618
D6S305 168 0.792633
D6S1277 175 0.219341
D6S1027 192 0.00885
GATA24F03 200 0.180632
Chromosome 13
D13S787 0 0.925463
D13S1493 19 0.434573
D13S894 28 0.643878
D13S325 34 0.264386
D13S788 41 0.040309
D13S800 53 0.222854
D13S317 66 0.00071
D13S793 81 0.161194
D13S285 126 0.373975
Figure 2.
 
Multipoint linkage analysis of IOP in a region of chromosome 6.
Figure 2.
 
Multipoint linkage analysis of IOP in a region of chromosome 6.
Figure 3.
 
Multipoint linkage analysis of IOP in a region of chromosome 13.
Figure 3.
 
Multipoint linkage analysis of IOP in a region of chromosome 13.
TielschJM. The epidemiology and control of open angle glaucoma: a population-based perspective. Annu Rev Public Health. 1996;17:121–136. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
SarfaraziM, ChildA, StoilovaD, et al. Localization of the fourth locus (GLC1E) for adult-onset primary open-angle glaucoma to the 10p15–p14 region. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62:641–652. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
SheffieldVC, StoneEM, AlwardWL, et al. Genetic linkage of familial open angle glaucoma to chromosome 1q21–q31. Nat Genet. 1993;4:47–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
StoilovaD, ChildA, TrifanOC, et al. Localization of a locus (GLC1B) for adult-onset primary open angle glaucoma to the 2cen-q13 region. Genomics. 1996;36:142–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
TrifanOC, TraboulsiEI, StoilovaD, et al. A third locus (GLC1D) for adult-onset primary open-angle glaucoma maps to the 8q23 region. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:17–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
WirtzMK, SamplesJR, KramerPL, et al. Mapping a gene for adult-onset primary open-angle glaucoma to chromosome 3q. Am J Hum Genet. 1997;60:296–304. [PubMed]
WiggsJL, AllinghamRR, HossainA, et al. Genome-wide scan for adult onset primary open angle glaucoma. Hum Mol Genet. 2000;9:1109–1117. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
NemesureB, JiaoX, HeQ, et al. A genome-wide scan for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG): the Barbados Family Study of Open-Angle Glaucoma. Hum Genet. 2003;112:600–609. [PubMed]
RezaieT, ChildA, HitchingsR, et al. Adult-onset primary open-angle glaucoma caused by mutations in optineurin. Science. 2002;295:1077–1079. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
StoneEM, FingertJH, AlwardWL, et al. Identification of a gene that causes primary open angle glaucoma. Science. 1997;275:668–670. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
FingertJH, StoneEM, SheffieldVC, AlwardWL. Myocilin glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47:547–561. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
LeibowitzHM, KruegerDE, MaunderLR, et al. The Framingham Eye Study monograph: an ophthalmological and epidemiological study of cataract, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and visual acuity in a general population of 2631 adults, 1973–1975. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980;24:335–610. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
KleinBE, KleinR, JensenSC. Visual sensitivity and age-related eye diseases. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1996;3:47–55. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
KleinR, KleinBE, LintonKL, De MetsDL. The Beaver Dam Eye Study: visual acuity. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:1310–1315. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
AtwoodLD, KammererCM, MitchellBD. Exploring the HDL likelihood surface. Genet Epidemiol. 1993;10:641–645. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BonneyGE. On the statistical determination of major gene mechanisms in continuous human traits: regressive models. Am J Med Genet. 1984;18:731–749. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BonneyGE. Regressive logistic models for familial disease and other binary traits. Biometrics. 1986;42:611–625. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
GoRC, ElstonRC, KaplanEB. Efficiency and robustness of pedigree segregation analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 1978;30:28–37. [PubMed]
CanningsC, ThompsonEA, SkolnickMH. Probability functions on complex pedigrees. Adv Appl Probl. 1978;10:26–61. [CrossRef]
BoxGEP, CoxDR. An analysis of transformations (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B. 1964;26:211–252.
AkaikeH. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 1974;19:716–723. [CrossRef]
SchickJH, IyengarSK, KleinBE, et al. A whole-genome screen of a quantitative trait of age-related maculopathy in sibships from the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72:1412–1424. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BoehnkeM, CoxNJ. Accurate inference of relationships in sib-pair linkage studies. Am J Hum Genet. 1997;61:423–429. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BromanKW, WeberJL. Estimation of pairwise relationships in the presence of genotyping errors. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;63:1563–1564. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McPeekMS, SunL. Statistical tests for detection of misspecified relationships by use of genome-screen data. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66:1076–1094. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
HasemanJK, ElstonRC. The investigation of linkage between a quantitative trait and a marker locus. Behav Genet. 1972;2:3–19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
LanderE, KruglyakL. Genetic dissection of complex traits: guidelines for interpreting and reporting linkage results. Nat Genet. 1995;11:241–247. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
KleinBE, KleinR, LeeKE. Heritability of risk factors for primary open-angle glaucoma: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:59–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
CongdonN, BromanKW, LaiH, et al. Nuclear cataract shows significant familial aggregation in an older population after adjustment for possible shared environmental factors. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:2182–2186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
HammondCJ, WebsterAR, SniederH, et al. Genetic influence on early age-related maculopathy: a twin study. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:730–736. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
KleinBE, KleinR, LintonKL. Intraocular pressure in an American community: The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992;33:2224–2228. [PubMed]
KleinB, KleinR, KnudtsonM. Intraocular pressure and systemic blood pressure: longitudinal perspective: The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Br J Ophthalmol. .In press.
HarrapSB, WongZY, StebbingM, et al. Blood pressure QTLs identified by genome-wide linkage analysis and dependence on associated phenotypes. Physiol Genom. 2002;8:99–105. [CrossRef]
HsuehWC, MitchellBD, SchneiderJL, et al. QTL influencing blood pressure maps to the region of PPH1 on chromosome 2q31-34 in Old Order Amish. Circulation. 2000;101:2810–2816. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
KotchenTA, BroeckelU, GrimCE, et al. Identification of hypertension-related QTLs in African American sib pairs. Hypertension. 2002;40:634–639. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
KrushkalJ, FerrellR, MockrinSC, et al. Genome-wide linkage analyses of systolic blood pressure using highly discordant siblings. Circulation. 1999;99:1407–1410. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
LevyD, DeStefanoAL, LarsonMG, et al. Evidence for a gene influencing blood pressure on chromosome 17: genome scan linkage results for longitudinal blood pressure phenotypes in subjects from the Framingham Heart Study. Hypertension. 2000;36:477–483. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
PerolaM, KainulainenK, PajukantaP, et al. Genome-wide scan of predisposing loci for increased diastolic blood pressure in Finnish siblings. J Hypertens. 2000;18:1579–1585. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
RiceT, RankinenT, ProvinceMA, et al. Genome-wide linkage analysis of systolic and diastolic blood pressure: the Quebec Family Study. Circulation. 2000;102:1956–1963. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
SharmaP, FatibeneJ, FerraroF, et al. A genome-wide search for susceptibility loci to human essential hypertension. Hypertension. 2000;35:1291–1296. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
XuX, RogusJJ, TerwedowHA, et al. An extreme-sib-pair genome scan for genes regulating blood pressure. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;64:1694–1701. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
ZhuDL, WangHY, XiongMM, et al. Linkage of hypertension to chromosome 2q14–q23 in Chinese families. J Hypertens. 2001;19:55–61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
SuarezB, HampeC, Van EerdweghP. Problems of replicating linkage claims In psychiatry.GershonE CloningerCR eds. Genetic Approaches to Mental Disorders. 1994;American Psychiatric Press Washington, DC.chap. 2
Figure 1.
 
Whole-genome scan for the quantitative trait, IOP, from the baseline examination. Marker positions are from Marshfield Laboratories (Marshfield, WI).
Figure 1.
 
Whole-genome scan for the quantitative trait, IOP, from the baseline examination. Marker positions are from Marshfield Laboratories (Marshfield, WI).
Figure 2.
 
Multipoint linkage analysis of IOP in a region of chromosome 6.
Figure 2.
 
Multipoint linkage analysis of IOP in a region of chromosome 6.
Figure 3.
 
Multipoint linkage analysis of IOP in a region of chromosome 13.
Figure 3.
 
Multipoint linkage analysis of IOP in a region of chromosome 13.
Table 1.
 
Familial Correlation Analysis of IOP
Table 1.
 
Familial Correlation Analysis of IOP
Familial Pair Number of Pairs Correlation with Equal Weight to Pairs 95% CI
Spousal 80 −0.09 −0.31, 0.13
Parent-offspring 510 0.13 0.04, 0.22
Sibling 1125 0.15 0.08, 0.22
Avuncular 715 0.02 −0.07, 0.11
Cousin 1646 0.09 0.03, 0.15
Table 2.
 
Sex-Specific Segregation Analysis of Intraocular Pressure (IOP) with Eye Drops, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure
Table 2.
 
Sex-Specific Segregation Analysis of Intraocular Pressure (IOP) with Eye Drops, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure
qA τAA τAB τBB βAA βAB βBB TX Age SBP PO SS DF −2lnL P AIC
1. No major gene (no transmission)+ familial correlations (sporadic)*
 Male 1.0 11.49 11.49 11.49 4.33 0.03 0.002 0.14 0.13 6 12084.8617 <0.001 12096.8617
 Female 11.86 11.86 11.86
2. Mendelian dominant+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.21 1 0.5 0 21.37 21.37 13.99 4.14 0.01 0.005 0.17 0.12 4 12039.5707 <0.001 12047.5707
 Female 21.42 21.42 13.58
3. Mendelian codominant+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.03 1 0.5 0 −21.9 17.84 11.75 4.09 0.03 −0.001 0.13 0.10 3 12004.2755 <0.001 12010.2755
 Female 3.76 18.18 11.32
4. Mendelian recessive+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.21 1 0.5 0 21.37 13.99 13.99 4.14 0.01 0.005 0.17 0.12 4 12039.5707 <0.001 12047.5707
 Female 21.42 13.58 13.58
5. Environmental mixed model τ’s = qA+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 11.79 17.46 28.45 4.07 0.03 −0.002 0.22 0.14 3 11968.0469 0.12 11974.0469
 Female 11.38 18.36 2.56
6. τAB estimated (semigeneral)+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.93 1.0 0.70 0 11.86 17.56 28.59 3.90 0.03 −0.004 0.18 0.12 2 11970.2469 0.02 11974.2469
 Female 11.45 18.48 4.05
7. General+ familial correlations*
 Male 0.94 0.98 0.74 0.56 11.75 17.31 27.9 3.89 0.03 −0.002 0.19 0.13 11962.1624 11964.1624
 Female 11.35 18.19 2.91
Table 3.
 
Probabilities Associated with Model Free-Linkage Analyses of Markers at Chromosomes 6 and 13
Table 3.
 
Probabilities Associated with Model Free-Linkage Analyses of Markers at Chromosomes 6 and 13
Marker Name Distance (cM) P
Chromosome 6
f13a1 0 0.568698
ATA50C05 16 0.037721
D6S1959 29 0.384235
GATA163B10 40 0.82304
GGAA15B08 49 0.856078
D6S1017 56 0.769203
D6S1053 78 0.844592
D6S1031 86 0.838587
D6S1056 100 0.269214
D6S1021 111 0.071395
D6S474 117 0.168925
D6S1040 126 0.667139
D6S1009 137 0.040428
GATA184A08 147 0.546271
GATA165G02 156 0.20618
D6S305 168 0.792633
D6S1277 175 0.219341
D6S1027 192 0.00885
GATA24F03 200 0.180632
Chromosome 13
D13S787 0 0.925463
D13S1493 19 0.434573
D13S894 28 0.643878
D13S325 34 0.264386
D13S788 41 0.040309
D13S800 53 0.222854
D13S317 66 0.00071
D13S793 81 0.161194
D13S285 126 0.373975
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×