Abstract
purpose. To assess the heritability of disc area (DA), cup area (CA), and cup–disc area ratio (CDAR) as intermediate phenotypes for glaucoma in Chinese subjects in a classic twin study.
methods. Twins (n = 1160) aged 7 to 15 years were identified in the Guangzhou Twin Registry. Optic disc parameters were measured with a Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT; Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) by the same examiner and grader. Zygosity was confirmed by genotyping with 16 polymorphic markers in all same-sex twin pairs. The DA, CA, and CDAR of the right eyes were chosen as the traits of interest in the analysis. Heritability was assessed by structural variance component genetic modeling, with Mx quantitative genetic modeling software, after adjustment for age and gender.
results. Of those recruited, 1114 twins were identified in the analysis, including 355 monozygotic (MZ) and 202 dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs. The intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.79 for DA, 0.83 for CA, and 0.80 for CDAR in MZ pairs and 0.30, 0.37, and 0.35, respectively, in DZ pairs. The age- and sex-adjusted variance component model identified additive genetic and unshared environmental effects (AE model) being best fit for DA, CA, and CDAR. This best-fitting model yielded 77.3% additive genetic (95%CI: 73.0%–80.8%) and 22.7% unshared environment (95% CI: 19.2%–27.0%) for DA, 82.7% (95% CI:79.4%–85.5%) and 17.3% (95% CI: 14.5%–20.6%) for CA, 78.6% (95% CI: 74.5%–82.0%) and 21.4% (95% CI: 18.0%–25.4%) for CDAR.
conclusions. The variance of optic nerve head parameters (DA, CA, and CDAR) appears to be attributable to additive genetic and unshared environmental effects. Approximately 80% of these phenotypic variances are genetically determined.
Population-based studies consistently suggested that the prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) in African-origin people is at least four times greater than in European and Asians.
1 On the other hand, familial aggregation of glaucoma has been known for many years.
2 3 A population-based, extended-family study confirmed an increased risk for POAG in those with affected family members, and enlarged cup–disc ratio was the earliest and most prominent feature of familial aggregation.
4 Ethnic variation and familial aggregation appear to suggest a genetic tendency of POAG. So far, almost all known pattern of inheritance have been suggested for glaucoma, including sex-linked recessive, autosomal recessive, autosomal dominant, and multifactorial.
5 Efforts on gene identification have been fruitful,
MYOC,
6 OPTN,
7 and
WDR36 8 gene mutations were identified for adult-onset POAG, whereas
CYP1B1 was thought to be associated with congenital glaucoma but later was found to contribute to adult-onset POAG.
9 However, the genetic mechanism of adult-onset POAG is far more complicated than expected. Mutations of
MYOC genes were found in only 3% to 5% sporadic adult-onset cases of POAG.
10 11 This finding underscores that the genetic mechanism of most of those with glaucoma is largely unknown. Instead of complying with Mendelian inheritance patterns, adult-onset POAG likely results from multiple genes and probably their interaction, as well as the gene environmental interactions.
10 11
POAG is an uncommon, age-dependent, and dichotomous phenotype. It is difficult to define clinically, in part due to its clinical heterogeneity and lack of uniform diagnostic criteria. These difficulties pose challenges on accurate phenotyping across generations and further gene searching efforts in traditional pedigree studies. Using a quantitative trait as an intermediate phenotype (also called “endophenotype”) has been increasingly adopted for familial aggregation and gene mapping in complex diseases,
12 such as psychiatric disorder,
13 hypertension,
14 and cancer.
15 Optic disc damage (i.e., commonly measured as cup–disc ratio), is an important quantitative marker for the diagnosis of POAG, as an evidence of existing retinal ganglion cells damage. Based on extended pedigrees from population-based participants, heritability of vertical cup–disc ratio (VCDR) was estimated as 0.48 in the Beaver Dam Eye Study
16 and 0.56 in the Salisbury Eye Evaluation project.
17 Both studies involved adult participants aged mainly 60 years and older: One study used stereoscopic fundus photography
16 and the other one used a +90-D lens for disc evaluation.
17 However, evidence of familial aggregation itself may or may not imply genetic effects.
18 Measured or unmeasured nongenetic risk factors are often difficult to exclude. On the other hand, subjective measurement of the optic disc may introduce systematic observer bias.
Twin studies are widely used as a “perfect natural experiment” to determine heritability.
19 A comparison of similarities of phenotypes between monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins allows for the estimation of heritability when the pair-wise variation of environmental factors is assumed to be very similar between MZ and DZ groups.
The purpose of this analysis was to estimate the heritability of optic disc parameters measured by HRT (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph; Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Dossenheim, Germany), a device shown to be objective and reproducible,
20 in a Chinese young twin cohort identified from a population-based twin registry.
This study confirms the high heritability of optic disc area, cup area, and CDAR measured by HRT in a population-based, large sample of Chinese twins. The variance of optic disc and cup parameters appears to be attributable to additive genetic and unshared environmental effects. Approximately 80% of these phenotypic variances are genetically determined. To our best knowledge, this is the first twin study to report heritability of optic cup and disc, using HRT measurement in a large sample of twin cohort.
This twin cohort was enrolled from a population-based twin registry. Therefore, we avoided the so-called concordance-dependent selection bias introduced by the volunteer-based attendance in a twin study—the MZ twins probably participated for examination more than DZ twins and therefore probably biased the heritability estimation.
23 It is not possible to compare the distribution of optic disc parameters in our twin cohort with that in the general population because of the lack of relevant literature. The fact that the refractive error (spherical equivalent) distribution in our twin cohort was similar to the general child population of the same age
25 appears to suggest that the study cohort is representative and that the data may be generalizable. Furthermore, the twin subjects involved in the study were all aged 7 to 15 years. The intrapair environmental variations are likely to be similar when the pairs of twins are all raised in the same family. In contrast, elderly twins tend to have a greater pair-wise difference in environmental exposure, either measured or unmeasured, in that their surroundings and occupation tend to be diversified in adulthood.
Optic disc parameters were measured by HRT, an objective quantitative tool that may minimize the measurement errors and observer bias. HRT measurements have been shown to be highly reproducible, particularly for the area parameters that are less affected by placement of contour lines.
20 All HRT images were analyzed by the same grader, while refractive error and astigmatism were adjusted during the image acquisition, all of which helps to minimize measurement errors. Furthermore, the estimation of heritability in twin studies is based on the comparison of the pair-wise similarities between MZ and DZ. It is possible that the observers tended to read similar values for MZ twin pairs when they looked very much alike if the cup–disc ratio (CDR) was measured subjectively (direct or indirect ophthalmoscope) and the twin pairs presented themselves together for the examination. HRT is able to avoid this problem, in that the least operator input is involved during the measurement. However, the measurement errors due to refractive error, particularly in highly myopic eyes,
26 may compromise the accuracy of similarity estimation between twin pairs, therefore, the estimation of heritability may be influenced by the heritability of refractive error.
The estimation of heritability of optic CDR has been attempted in extended-family studies. Armaly,
27 for the first time, described the familial aggregation phenomenon of CDR by family studies. The CDR was confirmed by direct ophthalmoscope, and polygenic multifactorial inheritance was suggested in this study. Based on stereoscopic optic disc photography of extended families from the population-based Beaver Dam Eye Study, Klein et al.
16 reported that the correlation coefficient of vertical CDR in siblings was 0.25; in parents and children, 0.24; in avuncular relatives, 0.14; and in spouses, 0.01. Heritability of the ratio was estimated as 0.48 according to the parent-child correlation.
16 Chang et al.
17 reported a similar heritability (0.58) based on the siblings of the population-based Salisbury Eye Evaluation study. The CDR measurement was performed mainly with a +90-D lens during slit lamp examination, and heritability was estimated as twice the residual between-sibling correlation after the adjustment of possible confounding factors. However, the estimation of heritability based on familial aggregation in extended families is often cumbersome, as the environmental factors, particularly those that are not measurable and therefore are not adjusted for, are often diversified to an unknown extent across various generation cohorts (parent-child aggregation) and even among siblings when they are not at the same age.
The twin study offers a unique opportunity for dissecting the genetic and environmental component in the phenotypic variance. As mentioned earlier, an MZ twin pair shares 100% of genes, whereas the DZ pair shares approximately half of them. Thus, greater similarities of phenotypes in MZ, compared with DZ, pairs suggest additional gene sharing if we assume the intrapair similarities of environmental exposure between MZ and DZ pairs is equal (the so-called equal-environment assumption). A few small-sample twin studies have given a higher but rough estimation of CDR heritability. Armaly
27 suggested that cup-disc ratio was genetically determined by using 33 twin pairs; however, the twins in the study were not differentiated as MZ and DZ, and comparison of similarities between MZ and DZ twins was not attempted. Teikari and Airaksinen
28 gave a general picture of greater similarities of CDR in MZ (10 pairs) than DZ (7 pairs) twins. Schwartz et al.
29 confirmed a greater ICC on horizontal CDR in MZ (0.846,
n = 37) than in DZ (0.490,
n = 26) pairs, with an estimated heritability of 0.60 to 0.80.
29 However, horizontal CDR is often less relevant to glaucoma, and the slit lamp observation may introduce systematic observer bias, as described before. These problems may affect the accuracy of the estimation of heritability in these studies. Although the methodology is considerably different, our study confirmed a heritability of approximately 80% for CDAR as well as disc and cup size.
In our study, the optic disc area, cup area, and CDAR were treated as intermediate phenotypes for glaucoma, given they were considered to be important clinical signs and even diagnostic criteria of glaucoma. The continuous distribution of these optic disc parameters was used to estimate the importance of genetic and environmental determinants. Studying these intermediate phenotypes may provide evidence of genetic and environmental effects that drive the pathways and link them to glaucoma. The high heritability of these intermediate phenotypes of glaucoma may support further linkage study on these phenotypes and may be promising in the efforts of identify the susceptible genes for glaucoma. Because of the age effects on optic disc parameters, the findings of heritability may have to be further confirmed in the elderly twin population.
Presented in part at the 2nd World Glaucoma Congress, Singapore, 2007, and chosen as one of the Top 3 Best Posters.
Supported by the Guangzhou Science and Technology Development Fund (Grant 2006Z3-E0061), the China-Australia NSFC-DEST Special Fund (Grant 30371513), and the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University, National Ministry of Education (Grant NCET-06–0720).
Submitted for publication September 3, 2007; revised November 6, 2007; accepted February 15, 2008.
Disclosure:
M. He, None;
B. Liu, None;
W. Huang, None;
J. Zhang, None;
Q. Yin, None;
Y. Zheng, None;
D. Wang, None;
J. Ge, None
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be marked “
advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Corresponding author: Mingguang He, Department of Preventive Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangzhou 510060, People’s Republic of China;
[email protected].
Table 1. Phenotypic Characteristic of Twin Pairs by Zygosity and Gender
Table 1. Phenotypic Characteristic of Twin Pairs by Zygosity and Gender
| n | Age | Disc Area | Cup Area | CDAR |
Monozygotic twin | | | | | |
Male-male | 167 | 10.6 (2.7) | 2.04 (0.47) | 0.57 (0.33) | 0.26 (0.12) |
Female-female | 188 | 10.9 (2.6) | 1.91 (0.41) | 0.45 (0.28) | 0.22 (0.11) |
Subtotal | 355 | 10.8 (2.6) | 1.97 (0.44) | 0.50 (0.31) | 0.24 (0.11) |
Dizygotic twin | | | | | |
Male-male | 65 | 10.6 (2.5) | 2.02 (0.47) | 0.55 (0.35) | 0.25 (0.13) |
Female-female | 41 | 11.0 (2.4) | 2.05 (0.54) | 0.50 (0.36) | 0.23 (0.11) |
Opposite sex | 96 | 11.0 (2.3) | 1.95 (0.41) | 0.51 (0.27) | 0.25 (0.10) |
Subtotal | 202 | 10.9 (2.4) | 1.99 (0.46) | 0.52 (0.32) | 0.25 (0.12) |
Total | 557 | 10.8 (2.5) | 1.98 (0.15) | 0.51 (0.31) | 0.24 (0.12) |
Table 2. ICCs for Disc Area, Cup Area, and CDAR
Table 2. ICCs for Disc Area, Cup Area, and CDAR
Twin Pairs | Disc Area | Cup Area | CDAR |
MZ male | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.77 |
MZ female | 0.75 | 0.82 | 0.81 |
MZ all | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.80 |
DZ male | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.32 |
DZ female | 0.45 | 0.40 | 0.38 |
DZ opposite | 0.26 | 0.37 | 0.39 |
DZ all | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.35 |
Table 3. Genetic and Environmental Effects Estimated by Age- and Sex-Adjusted Maximum-Likelihood Model
Table 3. Genetic and Environmental Effects Estimated by Age- and Sex-Adjusted Maximum-Likelihood Model
Variables/Models | A (95% CI) | D (95% CI) | E (95% CI) | −2LL | df | Δχ2 | Δ df | P * |
Disc area | | | | | | | | |
ADE | 0.459 (0–0.800) | 0.315 (0–0.791) | 0.226 (0.191–0.268) | 955.411 | 1108 | — | — | — |
AE | 0.773 (0.730–0.808) | — | 0.227 (0.192–0.270) | 957.125 | 1109 | 1.714 | 1 | 0.190 |
E | — | — | — | 1301.54 | 1110 | 341.44 | 2 | <0.001 |
Cup area | | | | | | | | |
ADE | 0.526 (0.024–0.848) | 0.301 (0–0.803) | 0.173 (0.146–0.205) | 127.351 | 1108 | — | — | — |
AE | 0.827 (0.794–0.855) | — | 0.173 (0.145–0.206) | 129.078 | 1109 | 1.727 | 1 | 0.189 |
E | — | — | — | 558.964 | 1110 | 431.61 | 2 | <0.001 |
Cup disc area ratio | | | | | | | | |
ADE | 0.521 (0.009–0.814) | 0.266 (0.002–0.779) | 0.213 (0.180–0.253) | −2019.268 | 1108 | — | — | — |
AE | 0.786 (0.746–0.820) | — | 0.214 (0.180–0.254) | −2018.00 | 1109 | 1.268 | 1 | 0.260 |
E | — | — | — | −1653.92 | 1110 | 365.35 | 2 | <0.001 |
The authors thank David Mackey and Alex Hewitt (Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne) and Yoon-Mi Hur (Seoul National University) for technical advice.
TielschJM, SommerA, KatzJ, et al. Racial variations in prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma. JAMA. 1991;266:369–374.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]TielschJM, KatzJ, SommerA, et al. Family history and risk of primary open angle glaucoma. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:69–73.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]ShinDH, BeckerB, KolkerAE. Family history in primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1977;95:598–600.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]WolfsRC, KlaverCC, RamrattanRS, et al. Genetic risk of primary open-angle glaucoma: population-based familial aggregation study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:1640–1645.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]WiggsJL. Genetic etiologies of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:30–37.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]StoneEM, FingertJH, AlwardWL, et al. Identification of a gene that causes primary open angle glaucoma. Science. 1997;275:668–670.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]RezaieT, ChildA, HitchingsR, et al. Adult-onset primary open-angle glaucoma caused by mutations in optineurin. Science. 2002;295:1077–1079.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]MonemiS, SpaethG, DaSilvaA, et al. Identification of a novel adult-onset primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) gene on 5q22.1. Hum Mol Genet. 2005;14:725–733.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]VincentAL, BillingsleyG, BuysY, et al. Digenic inheritance of early-onset glaucoma: CYP1B1, a potential modifier gene. Am J Hum Genet. 2002;70:448–460.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]FingertJH, HeonE, LiebmannJM, et al. Analysis of myocilin mutations in 1703 glaucoma patients from five different populations. Hum Mol Genet. 1999;8:899–905.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]WiggsJL, AllinghamRR, VollrathD, et al. Prevalence of mutations in TIGR/Myocilin in patients with adult and juvenile primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;63:1549–552.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]GottesmanII, GouldTD. The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:636–645.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]Meyer-LindenbergA, WeinbergerDR. Intermediate phenotypes and genetic mechanisms of psychiatric disorders. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006;7:818–827.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]WilliamsGH. Genetic approaches to understanding the pathophysiology of complex human traits. Kidney Int. 1994;46:1550–1553.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]BoydNF, RommensJM, VogtK, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:798–808.
[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]ChangTC, CongdonNG, WojciechowskiR, et al. Determinants and heritability of intraocular pressure and cup-to-disc ratio in a defined older population. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1186–1191.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]BurtonPR, TobinMD, HopperJL. Key concepts in genetic epidemiology. Lancet. 2005;366:941–951.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]MartinN, BoomsmaD, MachinG. A twin-pronged attack on complex traits. Nat Genet. 1997;17:387–392.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]Garway-HeathDF, PoinoosawmyD, WollsteinG, et al. Inter- and intraobserver variation in the analysis of optic disc images: comparison of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and computer assisted planimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:664–669.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]HeM, GeJ, ZhengY, et al. The Guangzhou Twin Project. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2006;9:753–757.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]TomseyCS, KurtzM, KistF, et al. Comparison of PowerPlex 16, PowerPlex1.1/2.1, and ABI AmpfISTR Profiler Plus/COfiler for forensic use. Croat Med J. 2001;42:239–243.
[PubMed]MacGregorAJ. Practical approaches to account for biases and confounding in twin data.SpectorTD SniederH MacGregorAJ eds. Advances in Twin and Sib-Pair Analysis. 2000;36–52.Greenwich Medical Media London.
NealeMC. Mx: Statistical Modeling. 1997;Department of Psychiatry, Medical College of Virginia Richmond, VA.
HeM, ZengJ, LiuY, et al. Refractive error and visual impairment in urban children in southern china. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:793–799.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]LeungCK, ChengAC, ChongKK, et al. Optic disc measurements in myopia with optical coherence tomography and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:3178–3183.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]ArmalyMF. Genetic determination of cup/disc ratio of the optic nerve. Arch Ophthalmol. 1967;78:35–43.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]TeikariJM, AiraksinenJP. Twin study on cup/disc ratio of the optic nerve head. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992;76:218–220.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]SchwartzJT, ReulingFH, FeinleibM. Size of the physiologic cup of the optic nerve head. hereditary and environmental factors. Arch Ophthalmol. 1975;93:776–778.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]