A total of 474 twin pairs (309 MZ, 165 DZ) aged between 8 and 16 years were available for the analysis after excluding 10 pairs with missing OCT data or iris parameters that were not analyzable.
Table 1summarizes the demography and phenotypes of interest in our study cohort. The ages of MZ pairs (11.7 ± 2.6 years) and DZ pairs (11.8 ± 2.4) were not significantly different (
t-test,
P = 0.833). In 474 first-born twins (234 boys and 240 girls), the mean IT750 and IT2000 micrometers from the scleral spur was 0.406 ± 0.060 (SD) and 0.514 ± 0.075 mm, whereas IAREA was 1.169 ± 0.184 mm
2 and PD was 5.601 (0.821) mm.
Figure 2illustrates the distribution of the mean of IT750 and IT2000. Linear regression (
R 2 = 0.07,
P < 0.001) showed that iris thickness did not differ significantly between people of different age groups (
P = 0.108); however, the girls had irises that were approximately 19 μm thinner than those of the boys (
P < 0.001). Adjusted for age and sex, iris thickness was not associated with axial length (
P = 0.204) or weight (0.366) but was marginally significant with height (
P = 0.015). In addition, as expected, we found that the iris thickness increased by 0.027 mm for every 1 mm increase in pupil size (
P < 0.001).
No significant differences between MZ and DZ twins were identified in IT750 (0.403 ± 0.062 mm for MZ, 0.412 ± 0.056 mm for DZ,
P = 0.135), IT2000 (0.511 ± 0.074 mm vs. 0.521 ± 0.076 mm,
P = 0.168), IAREA (1.161 ± 0.172 mm
2 vs. 1.185 ± 0.205 mm
2,
P = 0.196), or PD (5.591 ± 0.807 mm vs. 5.619 ± 0.851 mm,
P = 0.727). The sex- and age-adjusted intraclass correlation (ICC, equivalent to pair-wise correlation coefficient) was 0.60 and 0.20 for mean iris thickness in MZ and DZ pairs, respectively. The variation of ICC values was significantly greater in DZ pairs (indicated by 95% CI). IT750 and IT2000 correlations in MZ pairs were more than twice that of DZ pairs, whereas IAREA and pupil diameter correlations in MZ and DZ pairs were more similar
(Table 2) .
A series of model comparisons suggested that the one with AE (additive genes and unique environmental) components for iris thickness, cumulative iris area, and pupil diameter was the most parsimonious
(Table 3) . Dominant genetic effects (D) or common environmental effects (C) were not significant for any of these three variables of interest and were consequently dropped.
Table 3also reveals the parameter estimates in the best-fitting models for ITmean, IAREA, and PD.