DNA testing - Nearsightedness trait

So I’ve did a genetic testing for the usual curiosity about heritage (at myheritage.com). And looked around what else can be done with one’s DNA sequence :slight_smile: And found a site: https://dna.land/ where it shows a genetic nearsightedness trait. It’s a free site, made by some researcher from the Columbia University and New York Genome Center (check the help page for more info). You cannot get your DNA sequence from this site, but you can upload there your data if your have it from some other.
Their analysis uses this study for reference:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23396134

For me (again: had -4.25 myopia with heavy close-up use before founding endmyopia), my result is:
image
For me wife it said -1.4. She currently has 20/20 vision with lot of mobile phone and close-up, but she had -1.0 glasses with some astigmatism before, when she spent almost all of her day in close-up and slept only a few hours per day. She improved on her own when her lifestyle changed (less gaming, more driving).

For those not familiar with genetics, this result does not says that my eyes are -2.4 and will never be better. This only says that I’m predisposed to have this amount of nearsightedness, but the actual amount is determined by a lot of factor. For example there is a height trait too, and while I’m 178 cm high, my trait only says 170 cm. The difference most likely comes from strong steroid medication for asthma when I was a child (took them since 7). From their site:

This is the variance explained by the SNPs included in our analysis, and can be interpreted as the fraction of your prediction that is determined by the genetic variants that have been discovered. Because almost all human traits are determined by a combination of our genomes and environment, the prediction only takes into account the genomic component, and your trait may further be determined by your environment. Additionally, in almost all complex traits a large fraction of genetic variants thought to contribute an effect have yet to be identified, so these predictions represent only our best guess based on current genomic knowledge.

Based on this N=2 experience, it could be deduced that if you are more predisposed to myopia, the more easier you get pseudomyopia (I got it as soon as I went to school at 6,while for my wife it needed a lot more close-up), but it would be interesting to see other’s numbers :slight_smile: Anyone else here had their DNA tested?

1 Like

interesting stuff… shame that I don’t trust any company with my DNA data else I’d be interested

1 Like

Would also be interesting to see if your predicted level of nearsightedness is the average of your parents’ or siblings’ levels.

It also seems like today, people often develop more than the predicted level.

If I average my parents’ highest ever levels, I get my highest ever level.

1 Like

I read your post before, but only now paid attention to the shape of the curve. It seems emmetropia is not the mean, although this could reflect the level of reading and education of those likely to be interested in DNA testing. My daughter has had a DNA test, and I have asked her to try this experiment with her data. I will post on her results - if she ever gets around to it. In spite of covid, she still has plenty of translation work.

1 Like

The mean seems to be pretty close to -1.50 (I don’t know how large the data group is, and also I suspect that people interested in DNA analysis sites have some predisposition to myopia :slight_smile: ), which is if I remember correctly exactly the “relaxed state” of the eye determined in some study (which was linked in some other topic which I simply don’t remember). Which could mean that “emmetropia” is the mean, but in that case “emmetropia” means: “-1.50 natural refractive state + AF (be that whatever it is) strong enough for 1-2 diopter”. Which could explain why people have so hard time with the last diopter: they not reducing cms anymore, they just make AF more powerful / more fast / more automatic.

1 Like

Or less worth the investment, as I now see for myself that my -1 vision is good for most purposes. You would really need better vision than this on a regular basis for the visual cortex to want to make any further investment.

Yeah, I forget the visual cortex :slight_smile: Given that for some peak moments I was able to see people clearly about 400m away from me with -1.75 glasses while my cm was around 32 (so -3.0), I’m pretty sure that there is some visual cortex can do some miracles. And I’m pretty sure it was visual cortex image processing, because it was “different clear” than when I clear some blur with AF. The best description would be that while the there was some clear spots (mostly the center of my focus) there was a lot of “distortion” elsewhere. And the “clear spot” also not was that “crystal clear”, but “can see every detail but something is weird” clear. It’s really hard to describe :slight_smile:
So yeah, maybe that -1.5 diopter is one part AF, one part visual cortex. Most likely neither one is easy to train / develop. It would be an interesting study how big diopter difference can people clear with AF :slight_smile:

Indeed, I estimate it at around .25D for me. I do not consider the strange limited to central vision clarity I get on the Snellen line I am concentrating on, as that sounds similar to your peak moments :wink: (A naughty thought - how does orgasm affect vision?). This lets me ‘read’ the 20/20 line with uncorrected binocular vision of -1,-.25 and -4,-1 - something that is not theoretically possible.