Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anlage versus Umwelt

Wie stark sind Ametropien angeboren?

Nature or nurture

Effects of parental ametropia on children’s refractive errors

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Ophthalmologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die Anteile von Umwelt und Vererbung bei der Entstehung von Refraktionsfehlern sind bei Jugendlichen umstritten, weshalb für Vergleiche einheitliche Milieubedingungen wichtig sind.

Material und Methoden

In einem Elitegymnasium haben wir Häufigkeit und Dimensionen von Ametropien bei 728 Schülern in Abhängigkeit vom Refraktionsstatus ihrer Eltern erhoben. Messungen wurden nicht vorgenommen, die Daten stammen aus einer Umfrage.

Ergebnisse

Schüler mit emmetropen Eltern waren zu 22 %, solche mit einem ametropen Elternteil zu 44 %, und Schüler mit 2 ametropen Eltern zu 61 % fehlsichtig (meist myop). Die Chancen, bis zum Ende der Teenagerphase fehlsichtig zu werden, waren für Kinder fehlsichtiger Elternteile 3,5-mal so groß wie für Kinder emmetroper Eltern. Kinder mit 2 ametropen Eltern wiesen ein 8,3-mal so hohes Risiko für Myopie auf und waren signifikant stärker kurzsichtig. In unserem Datenmaterial gibt es starke Hinweise dafür, dass Mütter ihre Refraktionsfehler häufiger vererben als Väter.

Schlussfolgerungen

Bei ähnlichen Milieubedingungen spielt die genetische Disposition vor allem für die Entwicklung von Schulmyopie eine entscheidende Rolle.

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to quantify the degree of association between juvenile refraction errors and parental refraction status.

Methods

Using a simple questionnaire we conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence and magnitudes of refractive errors and of parental refraction status in a sample (n = 728) of 10– to 18-year-old Austrian grammar school students.

Results

Students with myopia or hyperopia were more likely to have ametropic parents and refraction was more myopic in juveniles with one or two parents being ametropic. The prevalence of myopia in children with 2 ametropic parents was 54 %, decreasing to 35 % in pupils with 1 and to 13 % in children with no ametropic parents. The odds ratio for 1 and 2 compared with no ametropic parents was 8.3 and 3.7 for myopia and 1.3 and 1.6 for hyperopia, respectively. Furthermore, the data indicate a stronger influence of the maternal ametropia on children’s refractive errors than paternal ametropia.

Conclusions

Genetic factors play a significant role in refractive error and may be of dominant influence for school myopia under conditions of low environmental variation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. American Optometric Association (Hrsg) (1997) Optometric clinical practice guideline: care of the patient with myopia. http://www.aoa.org/documents/CPG-15.pdf (Zugegriffen: 28.08.2012)

  2. Czepita D, Mojsa A, Ustianowska M et al (2007) Role of gender in the occurence of refractive errors. Ann Acad Stetinensis 53:5–7

    Google Scholar 

  3. Czepita D, Mojsa A, Ustianowska M et al (2011) The effect of genetic factors on the occurrence of myopia. Klin Oczna 113:22–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dirani M, Chamberlain M, Shekar SN et al (2006) Heritability of refractive error and ocular biometrics: the Genes in Myopia (GEM) twin study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:4756–4761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Edwards MH (1998) Effect of parental myopia on the development of myopia in Hong Kong Chinese. Ophthal Physiol Opt 18:477–483

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hammond CJ, Snieder H, Gilbert CE et al (2001) Genes and environment in refractive error: the twin eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:1232–1236

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ip JM, Huynh SC, Robaei D et al (2007) Ethnic differences in the impact of parental myopia: findings from a population-based study of 12-year-old Australian children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:2520–2528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones LA, Sinnott LT, Mutti DO et al (2007) Parental history of myopia, sports and outdoor activities, and future myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:3524–3532

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones-Jordan LA, Sinnott LT, Manny RE et al (2010) Early childhood refractive error and parental history of myopia as predictors of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:115–121

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Klein AP, Suktitipat B, Duggal P et al (2009) Heritability analysis of spherical equivalent, axial length, corneal curvature, and anterior chamber depth in the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol 127:649–655

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kurtz D, Hyman L, Gwiazda JE et al (2007) Role of parental myopia in the progression of myopia and its interaction with treatment in COMET children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:562–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lam DS, Fan DS, Lam RF et al (2008) The effect of parental history of myopia on children’s eye size and growth: results of a longitudinal study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:873–876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Landmann A, Bechrakis E (2013) Prävalenz und Dimensionen von Refraktionsfehlern bei österreichischen Gymnasiasten. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd (eingereicht)

  14. Lopes MC, Andrew T, Carbonaro F et al (2009) Estimating heritability and shared environmental effects for refractive error in twin and family studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:126–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Morgan I, Rose K (2005) How genetic is school myopia? Prog Retin Eye Res 24:1–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Moeschberger ML et al (2002) Parental myopia, near work, school achievement, and children’s refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:3633–3640

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ostrow G, Kirkeby L (2010) Update on myopia and myopic progression in children. Intern Ophthal Clinics 50:87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pacella R, McLellan J, Grice K et al (1999) Role of genetic factors in the etiology of juvenile-onset myopia based on a longitudinal study of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci 76:381–386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Paget S, Vitezica ZG, Malecaze F et al (2008) Heritability of refractive value and ocular biometrics. Exp Eye Res 86:290–295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saw SM, Shankar A, Tan SB et al (2006) A cohort study of incident myopia in Singaporean children. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 47:1839–1844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schaeffel F (2012) Klinische Risikofaktoren der Myopieprogression. Ophthalmologe 109:738–748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tang WC, Yap MKH, Yip SP (2008) A review of current approaches to identifying human genes involved myopia. Clin Exp Optom 91:4–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wojciechowski R (2011) Nature and nurture: the complex genetics of myopia and refractive error. Clin Genet 79:301–320

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wu MM, Edwards MH (1999) The effect of having myopic parents: an analysis of myopia in three generations. Optom Vis Sci 76:387–392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Young TL, Metlapally R, Shay AE (2007) Complex trait genetics of refractive error. Arch Ophthalmol 125:38–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Young TL (2009) Molecular genetics of human myopia: an update. Optom Vis Sci 86:E8–E22

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zadnik K, Satariano WA, Mutti DO et al (1994) The effect of parental history of myopia on children’s eye size. JAMA 271:1323–1327

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zadnik K, Manny RE, Yu JA et al (2003) Ocular component data in schoolchildren as a function of age and gender. Optom Vis Sci 80:226–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Wir danken der Leitung des Gymnasiums (Mag. E. Müller-Buergel) und den Lehrern Mag. H.P. Demetz, Mag. E. Juen, Mag. G. Kronfuß, Mag. M. Plankensteiner, Mag. Dr. P. Weichselbaumer und Mag. C. Zech für Unterstützung. Für Literaturhinweise und fachliche Kommentare danken wir Dr. Baldissera, Prof. Dr. E.N. und Prof. Dr. N.E. Bechrakis und Dr. Zehetner von der Univ.-Augenklinik in Innsbruck.

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seinen Koautor an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Zoologie, Universität Innsbruck, Technikerstr. 25, 6020, Innsbruck, Österreich

    A. Landmann & E. Bechrakis

Authors
  1. A. Landmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Bechrakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Landmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Landmann, A., Bechrakis, E. Anlage versus Umwelt. Ophthalmologe 110, 1179–1184 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-013-2782-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-013-2782-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation