Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Two Common Loci Associated with Pigment Dispersion Syndrome/Pigmentary Glaucoma and Implicates Myopia in its Development

Le résumé fourni par la source

Purpose To identify genetic variants associated with pigment dispersion syndrome (PDS) and pigmentary glaucoma (PG) in unrelated patients and to further understand the genetic and potentially causal relationships between PDS and associated risk factors. Design A 2-stage genome-wide association meta-analysis with replication and subsequent in silico analyses including Mendelian randomization. Participants A total of 574 cases with PG or PDS and 52 627 controls of European descent. Methods Genome-wide association analyses were performed in 4 cohorts and meta-analyzed in 3 stages: (1) a discovery meta-analysis was performed in 3 cohorts, (2) replication was performed in the fourth cohort, and (3) all 4 cohorts were meta-analyzed to increase statistical power. Two-sample Mendelian randomization was used to determine whether refractive error and intraocular pressure exert causal effects over PDS. Main Outcome Measures The association of genetic variants with PDS and whether myopia exerts causal effects over PDS. Results Significant association was present at 2 novel loci for PDS/PG. These loci and follow-up analyses implicate the genes gamma secretase activator protein ( GSAP ) (lead single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP]: rs9641220, P = 6.0×10 -10 ) and glutamate metabotropic receptor 5 ( GRM5 ) /TYR (lead SNP: rs661177, P = 3.9×10 -9 ) as important factors in disease risk. Mendelian randomization showed significant evidence that negative refractive error (myopia) exerts a direct causal effect over PDS ( P = 8.86×10 -7 ). Conclusions Common SNPs relating to the GSAP and GRM5/TYR genes are associated risk factors for the development of PDS and PG. Although myopia is a known risk factor, this study uses genetic data to demonstrate that myopia is, in part, a cause of PDS and PG.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.