No genes for myopia and only poor science to say its genetic.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by andrew Judd, Mar 17, 2005.

  1. andrew Judd

    andrew Judd Guest

    Ok. As you suggested i have done all that you asked.

    ****None**** of this stuff provides any evidence of myopia being
    genetic. Science is still looking and wondering.

    A summary.

    1.There seem two be two myopias - familial and school myopia.

    Young TL has only so far identified candidate or possible genes.

    As of this morning a well known British myopia researcher confirmed
    this to me.

    "****If**** we can find myopia susceptibility genes, we ****may*** be
    able to work out why myopic eyes grow excessively large. ****Then***
    we can work on finding therapies to stop this enlargement happening. I
    agree with you that classical twin studies probably over-estimate
    genetic effects due to the Common-Environment Assumption (CEA). "

    The details:

    1. Familial or high myopia. Relatively rare and **possibly** linked
    to genes.

    Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005 Jan;24(1):1-38.
    How genetic is school myopia?
    "The chromosomal localisations characterised so far for high familial
    myopia do not seem to be relevant to school myopia"

    *****but******

    From the horses mouth last year.

    Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2004;102:423-45.
    Dissecting the genetics of human high myopia: a molecular biologic
    approach.
    Young TL.

    "Identifying the implicated genes for myopia susceptibility **will**
    provide a fundamental molecular understanding of how myopia occurs and
    ***may*** lead to directed physiologic (ie, pharmacologic, gene
    therapy) interventions. The purpose of this proposal is to describe
    the results of positional **candidate** gene screening of selected
    genes within the autosomal dominant high-grade myopia-2 locus (MYP2)
    on chromosome 18p11.31."

    2. School myopia. What most myopic people have and not linked to
    genes.

    Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005 Jan;24(1):1-38.
    How genetic is school myopia?

    "High heritability values are obtained from twin studies, but rest on
    contestable assumptions, and require further critical analysis,
    particularly in view of the low heritability values obtained from
    parent-offspring correlations where there has been rapid environmental
    change between generations."

    This one is simple. China mainland with billions has low myopia.
    Taiwan with millions has high.
    I could not find this but in 2004, young says he is still looking.
    In the summary he says he finds evidence. In a court Evidence carries
    the same weight as me being in NYC when a murder is committed. Anyway
    by 2004 he decided he needed better evidence - me being in brooklyn
    for example.
    This begins with St Thomases twin studies. They use the flawed EEA.

    This article is just a press release to justify their research -
    probably due to the criticism they must surely have received for using
    the EEA method.
    This is a strange one! Its a study of hundreds of kids which does not
    seem to include parents. "The researchers found that, per week, myopic
    children spent more time studying and reading for pleasure and less
    time playing sports than non-myopic children."

    They conclude that myopic parents have myopic children but dont
    otherwise reference the parents. Maybe you get better eyesight if you
    play more sport and are more socially gregarious?

    So to summarise:

    Still no evidence of myopia being genetic.

    And a bit of evidence that playing sport might improve your eyes.

    Maybe i should offer a significant cash price to whoever can come up
    with any evidence at all its genetic??

    Everybody knows its genetic! Everybody!

    Doh!

    Andrew
     
    andrew Judd, Mar 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. andrew Judd

    RM Guest

    So to summarise:
    Really? Well the last I checked if there are GENES that have been located
    and that correlate with the development of high myopia, that's called
    GENETIC. So maybe "familial" high myopia is a different beast than "school
    myopia" but it's better proof that believing that stress or parental
    conflicts causes anything. I'm sure myopia is not a simple disorder. I'd
    bet that it's polygenic

    And why is it that Asian Americans who are living in the states have the
    same high incidence of myopia as do their ancestors in the Far East while
    North Americans/Europeans have a much lower incidence. It's not diet, it's
    not culture. Why is it that Americans living in Asia have the same lower
    incidence of myopia while all the native around them have a much higher
    incidence. It's not diet, it's not culture.

    And I'm not sure why you believe the incidence of myopia in mainland China
    is low. Maybe it's not as high as has been reported for Taiwan but it's
    much higher than North American/Europeans. Here's a quote from a mainland
    Chinese news report:

    "According to statistics compiled from a national investigation into
    student health, the myopia rate for Chinese primary school students is 22.78
    percent, 55.22 percent for junior high school students, and 70.34 percent
    for senior high school students" .... " From 2000 to 2002 the near-sighted
    rate of junior middle school students in Taiyuan, Shanxi Province increased
    from 61.3 to 64.2 percent..."

    Sound pretty high to me.

    And why is it that in population studies there is continually a high
    correlation of myopia in children whose parents are also myopic?

    Oh. And I guess that we'll just have to totally disregard all the twin
    studies because you have an argument that you think totally discredits them
    and nullifies their conclusions-- Not! It's a valid argument that you have
    about the studies but the result is still out there and it's evidence on the
    side of a possible role of genetics.

    No one said genetics is the ONLY cause of myopia. No one said it's even the
    MAJOR cause of myopia. But it's clear that there is clearer proof of it
    having a role than for any of the factors you would have us believe.

    Don't get too stressed out Andrew-- I can imagine the axial length of your
    eye is already starting to increase!
     
    RM, Mar 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. andrew Judd

    RM Guest

    Maybe i should offer a significant cash price to whoever can come up
    ===================

    Andrew,

    Here's something that "a well known American myopia researcher" from the
    Midwest just sent me. Haven't read them myself but I'm sure you will let us
    all know your critique.


    Mutti et al. 1996. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 37:952-957

    Zadnik et al. 1994. Jour. Amer. Med. Assoc. 271:1323-1327
     
    RM, Mar 17, 2005
    #3
  4. RM

    No specific genes have been found. No Study yet available says that
    genes have been found. And as of this morning none had been reported
    on the scientific grapevine.

    People are looking and they feel they are getting closer and that is
    what is being reported.

    My myopia researcher contact also made the point that even if a gene is
    found it only could mean that myopes tend to experience anxiety more
    than normal sighted people.

    Even if a gene is found the argument over nature versus nurture will
    continue. Pre westernised Eskimos for example had little myopia. That
    does not change because a gene is found.

    Your two studies are literature reviews only

    One has the title "Myopia. The nature versus nurture debate goes on"

    I think it would be helpful if you were to read this study before you
    comment further.

    Your other study is called

    "The effect of parental history of myopia on children's eye size"

    In an environmentally determined cause of myopia involving anxiety and
    stress it would be expected that anxious and stressed myopic parents
    would have anxious and stressed myopic children. That in essence is
    the 'nature versus nurture argument'.

    To say it is genetic you need to have a method which eliminates
    environmental influcences that will alter the results in a significant
    manner eg large numbers of identical twins raised in different homes
    from birth - but this almost never happens.

    I agree that a quick review of the literature is now showing that
    myopia is increasing alarmingly amongst mainland chinese as shown by
    your media report.

    However Singaporean Indians have exstremely high myopia compared to
    Continental Asian Indians. Its just not as clean cut as you are
    suggesting.

    Naturally Asians in America tend to bring their culture with them to
    some extent. Also the life of an immigrant family is often stressful.

    Isolation racism and so on. These factors have to be considered to get
    meaningful results.

    I think i need a break from this unless you can come up with some
    scientific studies you have read personally and feel are relevant to
    prove your argument myopia is genetic. There is no evidence so far. At
    all.

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 17, 2005
    #4
  5. andrew Judd

    RM Guest

    You are incredible! I give you published references that point to pieces of
    DNA which segregate out with myopia in affected families and you don't call
    that evidence. Then you ignor the whole Asian vs. European population
    incidence argument. Then you quote one argument that others have made
    against the twin studies and state that it therefore totally refutes the
    conclusions. Then you ignor the fact that myopic children seem to come from
    myopic parents. And you conclude that there is no evidence whatsoever that
    genetics has a role in myopia!!-- Simply incredibe. Apparently you want to
    set the bar for accepting evidence very very very high. And the evidence
    that stress has a role in myopia is what now-------- waiting!

    I think you do need a break Andrew. We all do.
     
    RM, Mar 17, 2005
    #5
  6. andrew Judd

    retinula Guest

    who are you to decide what good vs. bad science is.

    you who believes that myopia is caused by penis envy or some other kind
    of psychological crap.

    doo..
     
    retinula, Mar 17, 2005
    #6
  7. andrew Judd

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I concur with you needing a break from this. Your efforts to come up
    with a universal developmental theory for physical changes which
    excludes genetic influences are understandably frustrating and doomed
    to failure. It is literally incomprehensible to me that you would have
    squandered so much time and effort on this idea.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Mar 17, 2005
    #7
  8. andrew Judd

    andrew Judd Guest

    Dear Dr G

    Somewhere in this puzzle it is possible there may be some genetic
    factor operating.

    Evidence which withstands scrutiny is all that I would like to see.

    Meanwhile if you can provide me with a reference that shows a clear
    statistical genetic influence that is not produced on a false
    assumption ***or*** you can tell me why you believe that such
    assumptions are not false that would perhaps still be a useful line to
    pursue.

    Thanks

    Andrew
     
    andrew Judd, Mar 17, 2005
    #8
  9. andrew Judd

    Dr Judy Guest

    Actually, an number of genes have been identified as involved in refractive
    error. However, refractive error has many causes and you are not going to
    find a single cause.

    You are searching for evidence that anxiety causes myopia and you continue
    to try to infer that from any study you read. If you start with the
    assumption that all myopes are anxious, then you are always going to be able
    to say that myopic parents have an anxiety gene, not a myopia gene that they
    pass on or that myopic parents create an anxious environment that their
    children grow up in. It is a self fulfiling prophecy, not science.

    If you truly want to know the cause of myopia (ie are not just searching for
    evidence that anxiety is the cause) then you need to lose your bias and read
    the literature for what it is, not what you hope it is. There has been
    little research correlating anxiety and myopia, a MedLine search yielded
    fewer than 20 hits, the bulk about controlling anxiety during LASIK surgery.
    Those that did had few subjects and found no relationship, like this one:

    Myopia in optometry students: family history, age of onset and personality.

    Bullimore MA, Conway R, Nakash A.

    School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley 94720.

    The relationship between refractive error and family history, age of onset
    and personality was investigated in 189 optometry students. Subjects
    completed a questionnaire requesting details of their refractive history,
    type of correction and their family history. Subjects also completed an
    Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). Subjects were categorized as hyperopes,
    emmetropes or myopes on the basis of their questionnaire responses. No
    significant relationship was found between refractive group and the
    prevalence of myopia in parents. Myopic subjects, however, showed a
    significantly higher prevalence of myopic siblings. Furthermore, late-onset
    myopes showed a higher prevalence of myopic siblings than early-onset
    myopes. No significant personality differences were found between the
    refractive groups.


    And here is a study, with lots of subjects, about genetics and myopia:



    1: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005 Feb;46(2):442-6. Related Articles,
    Links


    Support for polygenic influences on ocular refractive error.

    Klein AP, Duggal P, Lee KE, Klein R, Bailey-Wilson JE, Klein BE.

    Statistical Genetics Section, Inherited Disease Research Branch, National
    Human Genome Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

    PURPOSE: Refractive errors, myopia, and hyperopia are common conditions
    requiring corrective lenses. The familial clustering of myopia has been well
    established. Several chromosomal regions have been linked to high myopia
    (12q, 17q, and 18q), to quantitative refraction among twins (3q, 4q, 8p, and
    11p), and to families with moderate myopia (22q). This study examined the
    familial aggregation and pattern of inheritance of ocular refraction in an
    adult population, by using data from the Beaver Dam Eye Study. METHODS:
    Familial correlations were examined and segregation analysis was performed
    on the average refractive error measurements in the right and left eyes
    after adjustment for age, sex, and education. Analyses were based on 2138
    individuals in 620 extended pedigrees with complete data on age, sex,
    education, and spherical equivalent. RESULTS: Substantial positive
    correlation was found between siblings (0.33), parents and offspring (0.17),
    and cousins (0.10) and lower correlation among avuncular pairs (0.08) after
    adjustment for age, sex, and years of education. The results of this
    segregation analysis do not support the involvement of a single major locus
    throughout the entire range of refractive error. However, models allowing
    for familial correlation, attributable in part to polygenic effects,
    provided a better fit to the observed data than models without a polygenic
    component, suggesting that several genes of modest effect may influence
    refractive error, possibly in conjunction with environmental factors.
    CONCLUSIONS: These results support the involvement of genetic factors in the
    etiology of refractive error and are consistent with reports of linkage to
    multiple regions of the genome.
     
    Dr Judy, Mar 17, 2005
    #9
  10. andrew Judd

    andrew Judd Guest

    It appeared clear from the studies that i found and showed here that
    the most common form of myopia is not being examined by gene studies.

    Why do you now ignore that?

    Your references were only for the less common familial (high and quick
    onset?) myopia - not the much more common childhood myopia.

    Other references provided by you but unread by you showed that there
    was a debate still 'raging on'. Between Geneticists and those who say
    the science is flawed.

    But in any case I could not see that any genes had been found. It
    appeared suspected clusters might have been located.

    I think it would a useful line of enquiry for me to find out more
    about so called familial myopia. Clearly if an eye is born with major
    genetic defects its outside of the line of enquiry i am involved in
    where myopia tends to decrease with age, or can appear at more or less
    any age from birth to death. Ie its so random that genetic affects
    are small or unlikely to be operating.

    As for myopic parents and myopic children. Similarly black children
    were regarded as inferior in intelligence because black parents who
    did not score well on intelligence tests produced children who did not
    score well on intelligence tests. Whatever the truth any test method
    that does not look at environmental factors (and they are not simple)
    is unscientific in its design.

    No amount of huffing and puffing changes these facts

    Andrew
     
    andrew Judd, Mar 17, 2005
    #10
  11. andrew Judd

    andrew Judd Guest

    RM suggested to me that the work of Young showed myopia was genetic.

    Perhaps i could invite you to read this research abstract and then
    explain to me where it says that genes for high myopia have been
    found.

    "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15747770

    Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2004;102:423-45.
    Dissecting the genetics of human high myopia: a molecular biologic
    approach.

    Young TL.

    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, and the
    Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

    PURPOSE: Despite the plethora of experimental myopia animal studies
    that demonstrate biochemical factor changes in various eye tissues,
    and limited human studies utilizing pharmacologic agents to thwart
    axial elongation, we have little knowledge of the basic physiology
    that drives myopic development. Identifying the implicated genes for
    myopia susceptibility will provide a fundamental molecular
    understanding of how myopia occurs and may lead to directed
    physiologic (ie, pharmacologic, gene therapy) interventions. The
    purpose of this proposal is to describe the results of positional
    candidate gene screening of selected genes within the autosomal
    dominant high-grade myopia-2 locus (MYP2) on chromosome 18p11.31.
    METHODS: A physical map of a contracted MYP2 interval was compiled,
    and gene expression studies in ocular tissues using complementary DNA
    library screens, microarray matches, and reverse-transcription
    techniques aided in prioritizing gene selection for screening. The
    TGIF, EMLIN-2, MLCB, and CLUL1 genes were screened in DNA samples from
    unrelated controls and in high-myopia affected and unaffected family
    members from the original seven MYP2 pedigrees. All candidate genes
    were screened by direct base pair sequence analysis. RESULTS:
    Consistent segregation of a gene sequence alteration (polymorphism)
    with myopia was not demonstrated in any of the seven families. Novel
    single nucleotide polymorphisms were found. CONCLUSION: The positional
    candidate genes TGIF, EMLIN-2, MLCB, and CLUL1 are not associated with
    MYP2-linked high-grade myopia. Base change polymorphisms discovered
    with base sequence screening of these genes were submitted to an
    Internet database. Other genes that also map within the interval are
    currently undergoing mutation screening.
     
    andrew Judd, Mar 17, 2005
    #11
  12. Dear Dr Judy

    Thanks for your reply. You have quoted a study that claims genes are
    found but so far i have not sighted those actual studies that show
    genes are found. It appears one of the leading researchers into genes
    and myopia is still looking for specific genes has some 'candidate
    genes' and feels he will find genes.

    There also appears to be the issue of:

    1. familial myopia (which appears to be a sudden onset high myopia
    appearing in the very young and clearly linked in some manner to
    similarly myopic parents)

    and

    2. Common or school myopia which is not clearly linked to myopic
    parents.
    There are large numbers of references in the literature to myopia being
    related to anxiety and that hyperopia is not related to anxiety.

    For example:

    1. Myopia

    Palmer (1966,1970) "Myopes present an outward appearance of calmness"
    "but
    tend to be suppressors of potential anxiety" "Myope does not respond
    impulsively, but is instead, quite cautious"

    Schapero and Hirsch,1952 myopes are "emotionally unresponsive,
    unexcitable,
    highly controlled"

    Van Alphen et al 1952 myopes "have deep rooted anxiety

    Rosanes 1966 "they have a low tolerance for anxiety and want to stop
    any
    situation they find threatening or stressful"

    Young 1966 "defending their ideas when attacked"

    2. Hyperopia

    Schapero and Hirsch 1952 "carefree lively and impulsive" "socially
    passive"
    Young 1966 "having a high need for exhibition and change"


    Then there are doctoral dissertations


    Kelley, Charles R. "Psychological Factors in Myopia." Ph.D.
    dissertation.
    New School for Social Research, New York: 1958.

    Fox, Jack. "Functional Factors in Myopia." Ph.D. dissertation. UCLA:
    1958.

    A PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF MYOPIA.. ZEIGER, CAROLYN
    ALLEN, PHD. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER, 1976. 262 pp.

    THE VISUAL ANOMALIES OF MYOPIA AND HYPEROPIA RELATED TO PSYCHOLOGICAL
    FACTORS.. BRANDT, ROBERT, PHD. CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL
    PSYCHOLOGY - BERKELEY/ALAMEDA, 1977. 158 pp.

    Gottlieb, Ray. "The Psychophysiology of Nearsightedness." Ph.D.
    dissertation. Berkeley: 1978.

    McClay, William H. "Systematic Relaxation: A Treatment for Visual
    Problems."
    Ph.D. dissertation. United States International University, San Diego:
    1978.

    FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF MYOPIA.. GRIGSBY,
    EUGENE HOWARD, PHD. WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, 1979. 90 pp.

    PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BOYS WITH MYOPIA. SEITLER, BURTON
    NORMAN,
    PHD. FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, 1981. 242 pp.

    MYOPIA AND PERSONALITY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MYOPIC SUBGROUPS.
    CARLIN,
    ENID SUSAN, PHD. UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, 1981. 77 pp.

    Kellum, R.B. Capitalism and the Eye. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Dissertation
    Information Service, 1997.



    Now some of these PhD's may well be micky mouse ones. But not all are.

    Kelly is still alive but he has got into some really flaky personal
    research
    on 'energy weather prediction' which makes the work he did earlier seem
    like
    the work of a lunatic. However his fundamental findings of former
    times
    seem to have a great deal of merit in my view. He was one of the
    first to
    associate myopia with anxiety, anger with hypermetropia and confusion
    with
    astigmatism. Ie different refractive errors have different
    personality/mental causes.

    I have spoken to Dr Burton Seitler who is now a practicing
    psychoanalyst
    who remains interested in the topic (the only normal sighted child of a
    myopic family) and he seemed a normal kind of guy and not your average
    nutty
    or eccentric shrink. I also emailed quite a bit with Dr Carolyn
    Zieger (a
    myope) who is now working as a practicing psychotherapist who now
    feels
    diet is more likely to be a factor. However i spoke to her
    Supervising
    professor , Lew Harvey Jnr (myope) who is a respected and well known
    professor of visual percption who felt the work had merit and should be
    followed up but he was no longer interested personally.

    Then there is the modern and ongoing work of Roberto Kaplan a former
    prof of
    optometry who is the most outstanding present figure in this field of
    relationships between prescription and behaviour. He has published 3
    books
    which provide more references. I have met him and he is undoubtedly
    authoritative and very convincing even for those who have no awareness
    of
    this subject. He visits london once a year or so.

    http://www.beyond2020vision.com/healthyemotions.html

    http://www.beyond2020vision.com/lightlensesmind

    http://www.beyond2020vision.com/nearsightedness1

    http://www.beyond2020vision.com/nearsightedness2


    It would appear evident that i have read some literature which you have
    not read.

    Dr Judy

    We tend to interpret data as we want to interpret data.

    I found the above very very interesting "No
    significant relationship was found between refractive group and the
    prevalence of myopia in parents. Myopic subjects, however, showed a
    significantly higher prevalence of myopic siblings.

    Lets be clear.

    1. No significant relationship between myopia in parents
    2. Myopes were highly significantly likely to have myopic siblings.

    Does that not strongly suggest a common environment for those children?

    If myopia were inherited in this manner people would quite quickly be
    showing returns to normal sight. Instead in single generations
    societies show massive increases in myopia.
    Yes that is true. But this does not mean it is genetic.

    Several chromosomal regions have been linked to high myopia
    Please show me the studies that do make this linkage. Are we talking
    about linkage or **candidate** linkage as described by TL Young in
    2004?

    Once again the results are very interesting. Parent child correlation
    is quite low at .17 whereas sibling correlation is two times that.

    That to me is a strong argument for environmental factors.

    True. Its clearly not strongly genetic
    This is an assumption or model. An assumption that familial
    correlation is genetic correlation.
    Their conclusion is based on an assumption. Ie familial correlation is
    genetic correlation but no assumption is made about environment (for
    example) which provides a far better fit.


    We all have biases.

    Whatever my biases all i am looking for is some study that can be
    fairly examined and shown to withstand that examination

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 17, 2005
    #12
  13. andrew Judd

    RM Guest

    Somewhere in this puzzle it is possible there may be some genetic
    Thank you Andrew. You have finally been forced to state the obvious.
     
    RM, Mar 18, 2005
    #13
  14. andrew Judd

    RM Guest

    ..
    That is not what we were discussing. You stated that there was no evidence
    that genetics has anything to do with myopia-- which is clearly an untenable
    position (as we both know).

    Give it a rest Andrew.
     
    RM, Mar 18, 2005
    #14
  15. andrew Judd

    RM Guest

    Andrew,

    You have no understanding of the difference between chromosomal loci (large
    pieces of DNA whose genes are yet uncharacterized) and the holy grail
    "myopia gene" (the actual protein encoding segment of DNA within a large
    segment in which mutation have been shown to cause a specific phenotypic
    change).

    The fact that specific chromosomal loci are known that segregate completely
    with the inheritance of myopia is sufficient evidence of a genetic basis of
    the disease. Just because we don't yet know exactly what the needle in the
    haystack is, i.e. what the encoded protein is and how it is mutated, doesn't
    mean we don't know that it relates to genetics. Knowing that a segment of
    DNA correlates 1:1 with the development of myopia is stronger than twin
    studies since there is no chance for arguments about common environmental
    influences.

    I'm tired of trying to make you understand even the most obvious of points.
    I've got better things to do. The truth is you don't want to understand.
    You are just another Otis-- argument for the sake of argument without regard
    for real data.

    An what is the data that proves stress has anything to do with myopia
    development?
    And why do many tribes of American Indians have high astigmatism-- is it
    that they ALL have conflicting messages from their parents?
     
    RM, Mar 18, 2005
    #15
  16. RM earlier you told me
    Now you prefer to ignore that erroneous statement and instead tell me I
    cannot work out the differences between loci and specific genes

    This may be so. However it is only true for familial myopia whichy is
    an **unusual** rapid onset myopia commonly observed in the young and
    different to common school myopia
    points.

    ?? Another alternate reality dweller

    understand.

    Good grief. I want to understand. Its you who seem determined to
    convert 'Loci' into 'specific gene' and exstrapolate unusual myopia to
    common myopia

    Have a look at what i replied to Dr Judy
    Its like this.

    "Great God in sky say that Redman is free man. Great God say that all
    peoples of world are free.

    White man say America free country. White man say people in other
    countries are not free. Bad people in other countries.

    Oh Great God in Sky my spirit is not free! I live like trapped animal
    on reservation provided by white man.

    All people are free! My spirit burns with the anger of my ancestors!
    My honor and pride demands I stand tall and live out the destiny that
    the Gods have bestowed upon me!"

    Fine words that get replaced by "I am only a useless drunken
    indian......i have no future...must live in white mans world. Build
    plenty big casino and get drunk all day long."

    Thats quite a conflict.
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 18, 2005
    #16
  17. andrew Judd

    RM Guest

    Yes moron. The locations have been identified. It's just the specific
    genes, meaning their reading frame, promoter sites, exact mutations,
    function of the encoded protein, etc. that remain unclear. Your
    understanding of molecular biology/molecular genetics is zero.

    So, it's only now that you are trying to make this distinction. In your
    exasperated postings from last night you stated:

    "Still no evidence of myopia being genetic"
    and
    "Maybe i should offer a significant cash price to whoever can come up
    with any evidence at all its genetic??"

    Now you seek to recognize that there are two types of myopia (Doo..) and
    that while you now must admit that one of them is indeed clearly genetic,
    you still want to fight over the other type. Sorry, but you lose on that
    one too. There is good data to suggest genetic influences on school myopia
    as has been presented to you ad nauseum by me and others.

    By the way, what is the cash prize you are offering?

    And as Dr. Judy stated, perhaps your statement needs to be rephrased " If
    anybody knows of any studies that suggest myopia is linked to anxiety and
    which demonstrates good science then I am very interested to read them"
    No Andrew-- I am simply trying to explain to you the concepts of molecular
    genetics. I can only imagine that your continued claims that the genes
    don't exist and that there isn't evidence for them in the face of reading
    the articles themselves means that you really don't understand how gene
    mapping works. It's different from psychology.
    I see. So those stereotypical influences cause astigmatism in Indians.
    What about those persons that have indian blood that never knew it? What
    about the more recent generations of Indians that are well acclimated into
    current society and don't "worry" about "white men", "drinking", and
    "great-god-in-sky". Do you believe they will cease to continue to have high
    levels of astigmatism? What about their children? I'll bet not.

    Just for fun, how would you propose to treat such stressed out persons? Do
    you think some counseling, tranquilizers, sitar music, and meditation will
    affect their refractive outcomes? Try it and publish your findings.
     
    RM, Mar 18, 2005
    #17
  18. A Moron is a short fat hairy dwarf found in certain areas of south
    america resulting from some thyroid problem or other.

    I am not sure how this is relevant to my ablity to read the studies you
    are quoting.

    In Youngs first 18P study (his mapped area is a big area rather than a
    locus as you want to believe) he had 8 families. Some mapped to 18P
    and some did not

    In Youngs second 12 Q study he used one large italian German family
    only.

    "Familial high myopia 1.7-2.1% of population"

    Young TL, Ronan SM, Drahozal LA, Wildenberg SC, Alvear AB, Oetting WS,
    et al. Evidence that a locus for familial high myopia maps to
    chromosome 18p. Am J Hum Genet 1998; 63: 109-119

    Young TL, Ronan SM, Alvear AB, Wildenberg SC, Oetting WS, Attwood LD,
    et al. A second locus for familial high myopia maps to chromosome 12q.
    Am J Hum Genet 1998; 63: 1419-1424[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].

    Other studies show no evidence his study is applicable to other myopes

    "common myopia or school myopia"

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/5/20

    Conclusions

    Significant evidence of linkage (LOD> 3) of myopia was not found on
    chromosome 18p or 12q loci in these families. These results suggest
    that these loci do not play a major role in the causation of common
    myopia in our families studied.

    Lets just stick to facts if you do not mind.
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 18, 2005
    #18
  19. Actually I was wrong here.

    For some reason i got confused with a cretin.
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 18, 2005
    #19
  20. andrew Judd

    RM Guest

    Again, you confuse high pathological myopia with common school myopia. The
    gene mapping studies are focused on high pathological myopia because it is
    so prevalent in certain families (meaning genetic.... doo..). There results
    admittedly say nothing about common school myopia (nobody here ever claimed
    anything different) although they do demonstrate that genetics CAN
    POTENTIALLY play a role in other types of myopia also.

    For example Andrew, do you understand the role of genetics in breast cancer?

    ================
     
    RM, Mar 18, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.