ArticlePloS one2022
Association analyses of rare variants identify two genes associated with refractive error.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in the genetics of refractive errors: Contributions from the CREAM consortium.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Review
- IMI-Myopia Genetics Report.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- A view from the clinic - Perspectives from Dutch patients and professionals on high myopia care.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGenetic variants identified through population-based genome-wide studies are generally of high frequency, exerting their action in the central part of the refractive error spectrum. However, the power to identify associations with variants of lower minor allele frequency is greatly reduced, requiring considerable sample sizes. Here we aim to assess the impact of rare variants on genetic variation of refractive errors in a very large general population cohort.
methodsGenetic association analyses of non-cyclopaedic autorefraction calculated as mean spherical equivalent (SPHE) used whole-exome sequence genotypic information from 50,893 unrelated participants in the UK Biobank of European ancestry. Gene-based analyses tested for association with SPHE using an optimised SNP-set kernel association test (SKAT-O) restricted to rare variants (minor allele frequency < 1%) within protein-coding regions of the genome. All models were adjusted for age, sex and common lead variants within the same locus reported by previous genome-wide association studies. Potentially causal markers driving association at significant loci were elucidated using sensitivity analyses by sequentially dropping the most associated variants from gene-based analyses.
resultsWe found strong statistical evidence for association of SPHE with the SIX6 (p-value = 2.15 x 10-10, or Bonferroni-Corrected p = 4.41x10-06) and the CRX gene (p-value = 6.65 x 10-08, or Bonferroni-Corrected p = 0.001). The SIX6 gene codes for a transcription factor believed to be critical to the eye, retina and optic disc development and morphology, while CRX regulates photoreceptor specification and expression of over 700 genes in the retina. These novel associations suggest an important role of genes involved in eye morphogenesis in refractive error.
conclusionThe results of our study support previous research highlighting the importance of rare variants to the genetic risk of refractive error. We explain some of the origins of the genetic signals seen in GWAS but also report for the first time a completely novel association with the CRX gene.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.