Chapter 65
Heredity of Refractive Errors
Main Menu   Table Of Contents



Refractive errors have been observed in the human race since antiquity. Indeed, the Emperor Nero was known to have observed the gladiator fights through an emerald. Historians debate the form of refractive error that afflicted the Roman emperor, since both concave and convex lenses were fashioned from glass or transparent gems during this period.1

Kepler2 was the first to define a form of ametropia when he identified myopia as a condition in 1611. At that time, he expressed the controversial belief that its cause lay in the accommodation and convergence required by near-work. This theory has been both supported and disputed by scholars for centuries.

Observations on the heredity of refractive error were first reported in 1906, when Worth presented several pedigrees that demonstrated an autosomal influence in myopia.3 Crisp expanded on this earlier work, stating that three factors were concerned in the etiology of myopia: heredity, nutrition, and the influence of study and close work.4 Subsequent investigators have sought to define the role of heredity in ametropia. A discussion of the inheritance of ametropia would not be complete without first considering the components of refraction and their role in the development of refractive errors.

Back to Top
Although the eye consists of 14 optical components, total refraction of the eye is the product of only 6: corneal curvature, anterior chamber depth, thickness of the lens, anterior and posterior curvatures of the lens, and axial length. Corneal curvature, power of the crystalline lens, and axial length are believed to exert the greatest influence on ametropia.

Several population studies5–8 have demonstrated that the values of each optical component are distributed in a normal binomial curve. However, considerable variation is encountered in the distributions and combinations of these different components. Stenstrom7 determined the axial length of the eyeball radiologically in 1,000 eyes. His findings are summarized in Table 1. Although there was a slight tendency for longer axes to produce myopia and shorter axes to produce hyperopia, the length of the axes varied within the same limits in different types of refraction. Thus, if axial length remained constant, the different combinations of variable but normal measurements for the first three optical components could render a total refraction ranging from +6 to -9 diopters!9


TABLE ONE. Axial Lengths in Different Types of Refractions

Refractive StateAxial Length
Emmetropia and hyperopia up to + 1D21.5 to 26.5 mm
Hyperopia between + 1 and +6 D20.0 to 26.5 mm
Myopia between -0.50 and -6 D22.0 to 28.0 mm
(François J: Heredity in Ophthalmology. St. Louis, CV Mosby, 1961)


Since each component of refraction follows a normal binomial curve, it would be reasonable to assume that total refraction, the sum of these components, would also be distributed in a normal binomial curve. However, studies by Scheerer,10 Betsch,11 and Franceschetti12 have shown a leptokurtic distribution of refractive error in the measurements of 12,000 eyes when high myopia is omitted (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Curve of refraction of Scheerer and Betsch and theoretical binomial curve (after Franceschetti; from François J: Heredity in Ophthalmology. St. Louis: CV Mosby, 1961)

Straub13 tried to explain a clinically observed leptokurtic distribution of refractive errors by proposing a process of emmetropization in which the eye tends toward emmetropia by adapting its optical components. Hartridge14 observed that a leptokurtic distribution of refractive errors could also be possible because of greater chance combinations. Nonetheless, several theories about emmetropization have been proposed.

Sorsby and associates8 assumed the retina to be the primary cause of axial length. This “genetic organizer” regulated the size of the sclera, which then determined the curvature of the cornea. Thus, a long eye is compensated by a flat cornea, producing emmetropia.

Van Alphen15 used factor analysis to identify a genetic factor responsible for axial length and corneal curvature, a second factor involving lens power and chamber depth, and a “stretch” factor related to ciliary muscle tone and controlled by the autonomic system and subcortical centers. He postulated that all three factors were interrelated. Thus, stress may lead to hyperopia through parasympathetic overactivity.16

Sorsby and Leary17 conducted a longitudinal study of refraction and its components during childhood and concluded that compensatory mechanisms, in addition to biological growth, can produce emmetropia. Sixty-eight children were examined between the ages of 3 and 8 years and again between the ages of 8 and 14 years. One group showed a decrease in hyperopia of no more than 1.3 D. This group had a mean axial elongation of 0.88 mm. The second group showed a much greater decrease in hyperopia and a greater mean axial elongation (1.62 mm). Sorsby18 postulated the mechanism for this emmetropization to be “largely automatic.”

Emmetropization may also be vision dependent. Rabin and co-workers19 reported the refractions of persons with early disruption of vision from several causes (e.g., cataract, retinopathy of prematurity) and found a high incidence of myopia. They proposed that early disruption of visual experience disrupted the emmetropization process. When the emmetropization of the eye was disrupted, ametropia resulted.

Back to Top
Controversy exists over the exact etiology of ametropia. However, most investigators agree that heredity is an important component. Early studies delineated pedigrees that supported autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, and X-linked recessive inheritance patterns.4,20–31 Multifactorial inheritance has also been proposed.24 Several authors suggest that heredity does not play a role in the development of refractive errors.5,32,33 Many investigators noted that high ametropias were transmitted differently than low ametropias and were often associated with other ocular anomalies.34 Individual ocular components are not considered in many of these studies.

Twin studies have been used in an effort to further delineate the influence of multiple factors on the heredity of refractive errors. In classic twin research, monozygotic (MZ) twins share identical genetic material and, if raised together, the same environment. Dizygotic (DZ) twins, on the other hand, only share one fourth of their genetic material but do share the same environment if raised together. Concordance rates in both groups are analyzed for the trait under study. If the concordance rate of a trait in MZ twins approaches 100%, while the same rate in DZ twins is significantly less, then genetic transmission is likely. When the concordance rates between MZ and DZ twins do not differ significantly, environmental influences and other random factors assume greater importance in the etiology of the trait under study.

Jablonski35 was the first to recognize the importance of twin studies in ametropia. In 1922, he reported his findings in 28 pairs of MZ twins and 23 pairs of DZ twins. Jablonski found essentially the same refraction in each member of a MZ twin pair. Rarely did the refraction differ more than 0.5 D. In the DZ twins, however, no concordance was noted.

To identify trends in inheritance of refractive errors through twin studies, Waardenberg25,36 reviewed the findings of several other investigators and found a high concordance for hyperopia and low to moderate myopia in MZ twins. He reported on 300 pairs of MZ and 225 pairs of DZ twins. High myopia was excluded from the study. Ninety percent of the MZ twin pairs had less than 1-D difference in refraction. The DZ twins were discordant. Occasional discordance was found in MZ twin pairs. The differences between MZ twin pairs tended to decrease with age, while the differences between DZ twin pairs tended to increase with age. Weekers and colleagues37 examined 14 MZ twin pairs and 14 DZ twin pairs and found results that were similar to those reported by Waardenberg.25,36 Hyperopia and astigmatism were very similar in the MZ twin pairs. High myopia, however, showed wide variations.

Conflicting results have been reported by Otsuka,38 who examined 295 pairs of twins and found no significant difference in refractive error correlation between MZ and DZ twins. Orth39 reported differences in refraction between MZ twins. In one MZ twin pair with identical optical components, one twin had a refraction of -24.00 Sphere/ -25.00 sphere while the other was emmetropic.

Several twin studies were able to document good concordance in MZ twin pairs despite differences in environment. Lisch40 examined a MZ pair with identical myopia despite the fact that one twin had a job involving constant close work while the other did not. Jancke and Holste41 compared 72 MZ twin pairs with 68 DZ twin pairs and found similar refractions in MZ twins despite the fact that one member of each twin pair engaged in strenuous near-work while the other twin did not.

Sorsby and co-workers42 studied 78 MZ twin pairs, 40 DZ twin pairs, and 48 unrelated pairs. Their criteria for concordance was agreement of refraction within 0.50 D. They found concordance was not equally good for all refractive states in the MZ twin pairs. Concordance was high for refractions near emmetropia but not so high for larger refractive errors. Low to moderate astigmatism (0.75–2.0 D) exhibited a high incidence of concordance in the MZ twin pairs. DZ twin pairs and the control pairs both exhibited poor concordance for this level of astigmatism, All pairs showed poor concordance with higher degrees of astigmatism (greater than 2.00 D).

Sorsby and co-workers42 then went on to investigate the separate components of refraction in each of the pairs. Generally, there was an incidence of concordance of 70% to 80% for most of the components of refraction in the MZ twin pairs. The exact numbers are summarized in Table 2.


TABLE TWO. Concordance Rates for Various Components Of Refraction in Monozygotic Twin Pairs

Component of RefractionConcordance Rate (%)
Ocular refraction70.5
Corneal power71.8
Anterior chamber depth66.7
Thickness of the lens70.5
Axial length83.3
Power of anterior lens surface85.9
Power of posterior lens surface53.8
(Sorsby A, Sheridan M, Leary GA: Refraction and its Components in Twins. Medical Research Council Report No. 303. London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1962)


Only slight concordance for components of refraction was found in the DZ twin and control pairs.

Thus, twin studies have shown heredity to be an important factor in determining refraction. However, different forms of ametropia appear to be influenced by different patterns of inheritance. A discussion of the inheritance patterns of each of the individual forms of ametropia is, therefore, warranted.

Back to Top
François9 has stated that the only certain data about inheritance of ametropia are that which are concerned with corneal refraction and astigmatism. Steiger5 noted in 1913 that persons with corneal astigmatism tended to have descendants Similarly afflicted. Twin studies confirm his observation by demonstrating high concordance rates for astigmatism in MZ twin pairs and discordance in DZ twins.27,35–37,43–52

Several family studies have documented pedigrees that transmit not only degree and variety of astigmatism (hyperopic vs. myopic) but also length of the axis itself. The majority of these studies demonstrate an autosomal dominant form of genetic transmission.9,30,47,53–61 Autosomal recessive transmission has been shown occasion ally.47,61 Rarely, X-linked recessive pedigrees have also been reported.62

Rieger and Thums63,64 were so impressed by the similarity in type, degree, and axis of astigmatism exhibited in twin studies and family pedigrees that they proposed astigmatism as a criterion in investigations of disputed paternity.

Astigmatism has rarely been associated with other inherited or sporadic conditions. Zeki65 has reported an association between astigmatism and optic nerve hypoplasia. Astigmatism has also been demonstrated in several forms of albinism.66

Back to Top
The comparative ophthalmology studies of Kardo Sysoeff67 have shown that hyperopia is the most frequent refraction found in mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Degree of hyperopia is higher in the smaller animals. Generally, the more highly developed animals tend toward lower degrees of hyperopia. The most frequent refraction in humans is a low degree of hyperopia.

The hereditary character of hyperopia has been demonstrated by numerous twin studies.35,37,44,45,47,49 This hyperopic concordance in MZ twins tends to persist unchanged throughout life. Environmental factors apparently do not exert a great influence.

Differences in inheritance patterns have been encountered in persons with different degrees of hyperopia. Low hyperopes (up to +6 D) exhibit different inheritance patterns than high hyperopes (over +6 D). In addition, highly hyperopic eyes have an increased incidence of pathologic associations.

Low hyperopia can be considered a variation within the normal limits of the binomial distribution.5 Most authors propose an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance.28,31,35,60,68

High hyperopia, on the other hand, is rather uncommon. Most extreme forms, often associated with abnormalities of the eye such as microcornea, can be classified as microphthalmia. Most studies demonstrate an autosomal recessive pattern of genetic transmission.30,69–73 Consanguinity of parents has been found frequently.73–75 Rarely, autosomal dominant transmission has been reported.68,76,77

Several inherited and sporadic syndromes are associated with hyperopia.78–82 In general, the associated hyperopia is of high degree. These syndromes are summarized in Table 3.


TABLE THREE. Syndromes Associated with Hyperopia

  Aarskog syndrome

  Adie's syndrome
  Best disease
  Gorlin-Chaudhry-Moss syndrome
  Kenny syndrome
  Leber's congenital amaurosis
  Posterior microphthalmos with papillomacular fold syndrome
  Sorsby syndrome
  Trisomy 21 syndrome


Back to Top
Investigations into the cause of myopia have engendered more passionate debate than those into all other forms of ametropia combined. Twin studies have helped to establish the hereditary nature of myopia. In general, investigators make a distinction between low and moderate myopia (up to -6 D) and high myopia (greater than -6 D).

A large number of twin studies of low to moderate myopia have been published. The majority show a high degree of concordance in MZ twin pairs when compared with DZ twin pairs.35,37,41–43,45–48,51,83–97 However, occasional examples of discordance between MZ twin pairs have also been reported.39,43,97–105 Concordance rates for myopia in MZ twin pairs have been observed to decrease as the degree of myopia in creases.39,43,50,88,99–105 In addition, the number of twin studies dealing with MZ twins with high myopia is much smaller. However, good concordance has been noted in several studies of high myopia in MZ twins.35,43,48,89,96,100,103,106–110

Although twin studies establish heredity as an important factor in the etiology of myopia, there is very little consensus as to the exact mode of inheritance of myopia. There are several reasons for this.111

Many authors argue that pathologic myopia is an entity distinct from physiologic myopia. However, few genealogic studies make this distinction. Physiologic myopia is mixed with pathologic myopia, confounding the data. In addition, a large number of ocular and systemic diseases are associated with myopia. Many times, cases of myopia associated with an inherited condition are inadvertently included in studies of pedigrees of myopia.

Environmental factors also seem to play a role in influencing the hereditary patterns of myopia. However, this is a particularly controversial area. Many authors contest the exact role of the environment, but the majority believe that the person's environment impacts greatly on penetrance and expressivity of myopia.

Difficulties are also encountered in sampling populations. Many studies incorporate children. Since myopia tends to progress into early adulthood, the artifactitiously low degree of myopia or lack of myopia in young children could adversely effect genealogic studies.

In addition, the mode of inheritance of each of the components of refraction has not been fully established. Separate inheritance patterns and hereditary correlations are unknown. However, it is known from Stenstrom's data7 that axial length alone does not determine degree of myopia.

Thus, several factors combine to confound genetic studies of myopia. Nonetheless, most genealogic studies demonstrate a significant familial prevalence of myopia, although there is not good agreement on a single mode of inheritance.

Low to moderate myopia has most commonly been found to be transmitted as an autosomal dominant trait.8,23–26,68,84,112 Autosomal recessive transmission has also been observed by several investigators.4,35,113,114 X-linked recessive transmission has been reported rarely.4,20,22,27 Several studies have also proposed a polygenic pattern of inheritance.8,115

High myopia has been described in several studies as exhibiting characteristics of both autosomal dominant and autosomal recessive inheritance.24,26,30,116 Some authors have documented pure autosomal dominant inheritance,9,117 while others have observed pure autosomal recessive inheritance.68,118 X-linked recessive inheritance is rarely described.119

In an attempt to clarify the conflicting data presented in genealogical studies of myopia, several authors have examined inheritance patterns in each of the separate components of refraction. An attempt was made to relate the inheritance patterns of the separate components of refraction to that of total myopic refraction.

Sorsby and co-workers8 conducted the first large study of components of refraction but were unable to draw any conclusions about the inheritance of myopia. Nakajima120,121 studied the heritability of the individual optical components in twins. Corneal and lens thickness, anterior chamber depth, and radius of curvature of the lens surface were all discordant. Axial length and the other remaining components of refraction all demonstrated concordance. Alsbirk122–125 studied several components of refraction in Greenland Eskimos and found strong heritability for the components measured (60%–80%). However, total ocular refraction demonstrated low heritability, He attributed this finding to environmental effects.

Familial resemblance of myopia has been noted by several authors to be greatest between siblings and less between parent and offspring.125–128 The greater sibling resemblance reopens the question of the role of environment versus heredity in the etiology of myopia.

The genetics versus environment dilemma in myopia is best summed up by Goldschmidt,84 who believed that myopia is unlikely to be the product of single gene transmission. His analysis of proband families and review of the literature found persons with low to moderate myopia had similar values for each of their components of refraction. High myopes, on the other hand, were a wildly heterogeneous group. This led him to propose a polygenic inheritance pattern for myopia.

It is conceivable that environment may have a substantial impact on this polygenic inheritance. Krill29 has observed that myopia produced by multiple genes is particularly susceptible to environmental influences. Indeed, myopia has many associations with systemic syndromes, both inherited and sporadic (Table 4).111,130–133 A large number of ocular conditions are also associated with myopia (Table 5).111,134–136


TABLE FOUR. Systemic Syndromes Associated with Myopia

  Aberfield syndrome

  Achard syndrome


  Alport syndrome
  Congenital external ophthalmoplegia

  Chromosome 18 partial deletion (long-arm) syndrome

  Cornelia de Lange syndrome
  Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
  Forsius-Eriksson syndrome
  Gänsslen syndrome
  Gillum-Anderson syndrome
  Gyrate atrophy

  Haney-Falls syndrome
  Hereditary ectodermal dysplasia syndrome

  Homocystinuria syndrome
  Hypomelanosis of Ito syndrome
  Kartagener syndrome
  Kenny syndrome
  Kniest's disease
  Laurence-Moon-Bardet-Biedl syndrome
  Marchesani syndrome
  Marfan syndrome
  Marshall syndrome

  Matsoukas syndrome
  Meyer-Schwickerath and Weyers (oculodentodigital) syndrome

  Myasthenia gravis

  Noonan syndrome
  Obesity-cerebral-ocular-skeletal anomalies syndrome

  Oculodental syndrome

  Pierre Robin syndrome
  Pigmentary ocular dispersion syndrome

  Riley-Day syndrome syndrome
  Schwartz syndrome
  Seiman syndrome
  Stickler's syndrome
  Trisomy 21 syndrome
  Trisomy 22 syndrome
  Turner syndrome
  Tuomaala-Haapanen syndrome
  van Bogaert-Hozay syndrome
  Wagner's syndrome
  Weill-Marchesani syndrome

  Wrinkly skin syndrome



TABLE FIVE. Ophthalmic Syndromes Associated with Myopia

  Anterior lenticonus
  Autosomal dominant cataract and microcornea

  Bilateral blepharoptosis, ectopia lentis and high myopia syndrome
  Clefting syndromes

  Congenital scleral ectasia

  Congenital stationary night blindness
  Ectopia lentis

  Fabry's disease
  Familial exudative vitreoretinopathy

  Fundus flavimaculatus

  Gyrate atrophy
  Hereditary retinal detachment


  Myelinated nerve fibers
  Nystagmus with or without amblyopia

  Progressive bifocal chorioretinal atrophy
  Retinitis pigmentosa
  Retinopathy of prematurity
  Vitreoretinal dystrophy

  Wagner's disease


To examine the role played by environment in the development of myopia, animal models have been employed. Many of these animal studies focus on the induction of myopia by artificial manipulation of the environment.

The earliest report of an animal model for myopia was made in 1929 when Levensohn137 reported the induction of myopia in macaque monkeys enclosed in a box with their heads held horizontally and extended beyond a table. His results were disputed by subsequent authors.138,139 Young140 went On to induce myopia in monkeys exposed to a restricted visual space.

Wiesel and associates141 serendipitously found myopia in visually deprived macaque monkeys in their investigations on amblyopia and monocular visual deprivation. Wiesel and Raviola142 went on to show that unilateral lid suture produced high degrees of myopia in macaque monkeys. The degree of myopia was related to the age of the monkey at the time of the lid suture and the duration of the experiment. Axial length and equatorial diameter were increased while the anterior segment was essentially unchanged (Fig. 2). However, when lid-sutured monkeys were raised in the dark, axial lengths and refractions were normal.143 The mechanism of induction of myopia was believed to be reduction in patterned retinal images. To confirm this theory, corneal opacities were then caused in monkeys by injection of a fine suspension of polystyrene beads. This also increased the axial length, while leaving the anterior segment unchanged, thus confirming the investigator's suspicions.144

Fig. 2. Composite drawing of dimensions of normal monkey eye (left) and lid-sutured monkey eye (right). (Wiesel TN, Raviola E: Myopia and eye enlargement after neonatal lid fusion in monkeys. Nature 266:66, 1977)

In 1985, Raviola and Wiesel145 reported a series of experiments that extended their work on induction of myopia. In this series, they explored the role of the central nervous system on eye growth. Removal of the striate cortex had no effect on lid-suture myopia. Topical atropine (and removal of the ciliary ganglion) had no effect on lid-suture myopia in three rhesus macaque monkeys but prevented myopia in four stump-tailed macaques. Isofluorophate, which produces ciliary spasm, had no effect on the development of myopia in both rhesus and stump-tailed macaques. Sympathetic denervation and trigeminal section likewise failed to alter progression of myopia. Optic nerve section prevented myopia in one stump-tailed macaque but failed to prevent lid-fusion myopic progression in three rhesus macaques when all four monkeys underwent unilateral lid fusion and intracranial section of the optic chiasm.

Raviola and Wiesel's work has shown that lid suture (i.e., visual deprivation) causes myopia. Other investigators have documented a similar arrest of emmetropization with disruption of vision. Guyton and colleagues146 found that the eyes of dark-reared rhesus monkeys remained close to the hyperopia common in the neonatal period. Von Noorden and Crawford147 failed to achieve consistent results in their study of lid closure, suggesting that emmetropization may be disrupted in both directions. In reexamining these results, Smith and co-workers148 found myopia after lid suture in 43 of 47 monkeys. Several avian models of myopia are under investigation.149

Clinical models of vision deprivation myopia have also been reported. Unilateral birth injuries of the cornea have been observed to progress toward myopia.150,151 Myopia and increased axial length have been observed in persons with corneal opacities.152 A unilateral posterior subcapsular cataract was noted to be associated with axial myopia in the affected eye in one of a pair of MZ twins.153 Von Noorden and Lewis154 reported on 10 patients with unilateral aphakia. In 7 of these patients, the affected eye demonstrated an axial myopia. Robb155 described orbital and adnexal hemangiomas associated with unilateral ametropia, usually high myopia, in young children. Hoyt and co-workers156 have found a similar association of axial myopia in neonatal lid closure from a variety of causes. Rabin and associates19 found unilateral myopia in association with several monocular visual anomalies. They also reported bilateral myopia in several patients with binocular anomalies. These clinical observations confirm the findings of experimental models of myopia-visual deprivation can produce myopia by interrupting the emmetropization process.

One of the most controversial environmental factors in the development of myopia is its association with near-work (“use-abuse” theory). In general, there is agreement that near-work does not play a substantial part in the development of pathologic myopia. The early presentation of pathologic myopia, usually before reading age, and its lack of correlation with occupations involved in intensive near-work have made “use-abuse” unlikely in this form of myopia.84,157,158

However, studies abound concerning near-work and its role in the development and progression of low and moderate degrees of myopia. Cohn159 first noted an association between education and the development of myopia in 1886. In more recent years, Young and colleagues160 examined schoolchildren in Pullman, Washington, and found myopia most commonly in the school children who did the most near-work. Nadell and co-workers161 found no significant difference in the amount of time spent on near-work by myopic and non-myopic high school students. Angle and Wissmann162 found no significant effect of near-work on refraction in their regression analysis study. Richler and Bear,163 however used multiple regression coefficients in their study and found near-work to induce myopia in the school population who were 5 to 14 years of age.

Several populations have been studied in an effort to determine the role of near-work in the genesis of myopia. Sorsby164 studied the frequency of myopia among Jewish and non-Jewish children in London and found increased prevalence of myopia in the Jewish children. Myopic shift during the school years, however, was equal in both groups. Sorsby attributed the increased prevalence of myopia in the Jewish children to hereditary influence. Young and co-workers128 studied 508 Eskimo subjects and found myopia rarely in parents and grandparents. However, 58% of the children were myopic. This was attributed to the introduction of Western-style education during the past generation. Post165 compared the refractions of Gabon blacks, Eskimos, Germans, Swedes, and Britons. The Europeans manifested excesses of both hyperopia and myopia. This increased incidence of ametropia in the subjects of industrialized nations was attributed to “relaxation of the pressures of natural selection.” The Chinese population is noted to have a very high incidence of myopia, but 90% of the population is illiterate. Similarly, literate European settlers and native tribesmen in equatorial Africa both display the same incidence of myopia.165 Thus, the controversy surrounding the “use-abuse” theory rages on.

Back to Top
Twin studies have confirmed that heredity plays a significant role in the development of refractive errors. However, different forms of ametropia appear to be influenced by different patterns of inheritance.

Astigmatism most consistently follows an autosomal dominant mode of transmission with rare reports of autosomal and X-linked recessive pedigrees noted. Associated conditions are rare.

Low hyperopia is the norm in most populations.

Its most consistent mode of transmission is autosomal dominant. High hyperopia is uncommon and often associated with abnormalities of the eye and various systemic syndromes. The usual form of transmission is autosomal recessive.

Heredity plays an important role in the development of myopia, but difficulties in population sampling have precluded a straightforward assessment of inheritance pattern. Multifactorial inheritance appears most likely, with environmental factors playing an important, albeit ill-defined role. High myopia is a heterogeneous group of conditions with many systemic and ocular associations, making inheritance patterns difficult to define.

Thus, different forms of refractive error display different inheritance patterns. Environmental influences vary with the form of ametropia. Ongoing investigations into heredity of refractive errors concentrate on inheritance patterns of the individual components of refraction and how these factors interact and combine to form the final refraction.

Back to Top

1. Hirschberg J: The History of Ophthalmology, pp 159–160. Blodi F (trans). Bonn, JP Wayenbough, 1982

2. Kepler J: Dioptrice: Seu demonstratio eorum quae visui et visibilibus propter conspicilla non ita pridem inventa accidunt. Augsburg, 1611

3. Worth C: Hereditary influence in myopia. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK, 26: 141, 1906

4. Wold KC: Hereditary myopia. Arch Ophthalmol 42:225, 1949

5. Steiger A: Die Entstehung der Sphärischen Refraktionen des Menschlichen Auges. Berlin, S Karger, 1913

6. Tron E: The optic elements of the refractive power of the eye. In Ridley F, Sorsby A (eds): Modern Trends in Ophthalmology. London, Butterworth & Co, 1940

7. Stenstrom S: Variations and correlations of the optical components of the eye. In Sorsby A (ed): Modern Trends in Ophthalmology. New York, Paul C. Hoeber, 1948

8. Sorsby A, Benjamin B, Davey JB et al: Emmetropia and its Aberrations, a Study in the Correlation of the Optical Components of the Eye. Medical Research Council Report No. 293, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1957

9. François J: Heredity in Ophthalmology, pp 186–204. St, Louis, CV Mosby, 1961

10. Scheerer R: Zur Entwicklung der Brechzustande des Auges. Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges 47:118, 1928

11. Betsch A: Uber die menschliche Refraktionskurve. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 82:365. 1929

12. Franceschetti A: Refraktion. In: Schieck and Brückner's Handbook, vol 1, pp 716–722, 1930

13. Straub M: Uber die Aetilogie der Brechungsanomalien des Auges und den Ursprung der Emmetropie. Graefes Arch KIln Exp Ophthalmol 70:130, 1909

14. Hartridge H: The causes of errors of refraction. Br J Physiol Optics 7:143, 1950

15. Van Alphen GWHM: On emmetropia and ametropia. Ophthalmologica 142(suppl):l, 1961

16. Michaels DD: Visual Optics and Refraction, a Clinical Approach, pp 457–483. St. Louis, CV Mosby, 1985

17. Sorsby A, Leary GA: A Longitudinal Study of Refraction and its Components During Growth. Medical Research Council Report No. 309, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1970

18. Sorsby A: The nature of spherical refractive errors. In Sorsby A (ed): Modern Ophthalmology, vol 3, Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1972

19. Rabin J, Van Sluyters RC, Malach R: Emmetropization: A vision-dependent phenomenon. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 20:561, 1981

20. Wixson RJ: Refraction pedigrees: Comments on heredity and environment. Am J Optom 39:471, 1962

21. Arner RS: An evaluation of the Massachusetts vision screening test and its implication in a genetic theory of myopia. Am J Optom 35:470, 1958

22. Wixson RJ: Statistical analysis of hereditary factors in ametropia. Am J Optom 33:374, 1956

23. Holm S: Les de la refraction oculaire chez les paleonegrieles au Gabon Afrique Equatoriale François. Acta Ophthalmol 13(suppl): Vol 15, 1937. In Borish I: Clinical Refraction pp 5–148. Chicago, The Professional Press, 1975

24. Harris RB: Refractive error in monozygotic twins. Eye Ear Nose Throat Monthly 36:41, 1957

25. Waardenberg PJ: On emmetropia and ametropia. Acta Ophthalmol 142(suppl), 1961. In Borish I: Clinical Refraction, pp 5–148. Chicago, The Professional Press, 1975

26. Bays JA: Heredity and myopia. J Am Optom Assoc 37:46, 1966

27. Wixson RJ: The relative effects of heredity and environment upon the refractive errors of identical twins, fraternal twins, and like-sex siblings, Am J Optom 35:346, 1958

28. Ditmars DL: A Comparative study of refractive errors of young myopes and their parents: Am J Optom 44:448, 1967

29. Hirsch M J, Ditmars DL: Refraction of young myopes and their parents: A reanalysis. Am J Optom 46:30, 1969

30. Beyer CK: Heredity and refraction errors, refraction in children. International Ophthalmology Clinics 2:935, 1962

31. Ellerbrock VJ: Developmental, Congenital and Hereditary Anomalies of the Eye. In Hirsch M J, Wick W (eds): Vision of Children. Philadelphia, Chilton Book Co, 1963

32. Czellitzer C: Totalrefraktion und Hornhautrefraktion mit besonder Berunksichtigung des physiologischen linsen Astigmatismos. KIln Monatsbl Augenheilkd 79:301, 1927

33. Kanefuji M: Correlation among refractive errors. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 57:85, 1953

34. Borish I: Clinical Refraction, pp 5–148. Chicago, The Professional Press, 1975

35. Jablonski W: Ein Beltrag zur Vererbung der Refraktion menschlicher ugen. Arch Augenheilkd 91:308, 1922

36. Waardenberg PJ: Twin research in ophthalmology. Doc Ophthalmol 84:593, 1950

37. Weekers R, Moaurian P, Harcourt J, Andre A: A contribution to the subject of the genesis of ametropia by the study of uni- and bi-ovular twins. Arch Ophthalmo1 Fr 17:38, 1957

38. Otsuka Z: Refraction of twins. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 46: 1744, 1942

39. Orth H: Extreme Diskordanz der Refraktinswerte eineiiger zwillinge. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 124:304, 1954

40. Lisch K: Zur Frase der Myopiegenese. KIln Monatsbl Augenheilkd 106:695, 1941

41. Jancke G, Holste A: Der Einfluss von Erblichkeit und Umwelt auf die Refraktionsentstehung: Eine Zwillings-studie. KIln Monatsbl Augenheilkd 107:373, 1941

42. Sorsby A, Sheridan M, Leary GA: Refraction and its Components in Twins. Medical Research Council Report No. 303, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1962

43. Heinonen O: Über die Refraktion bei eineiigen Zwillingen, speziell in Hinsicht der asymmetrischen Fälle. Acta Ophthalmol 2:35, 1924

44. Siemens HW: Die Zwillingspathologie: Zur Aetiologie des Turmschädels nebst mitteilung einer dermatologischen Methode zur Diagnose der Eineiigkeit bei Zwillingen. Virchows Arch Pathol Anat 253:746, 1924

45. Beckershaus F: Über eineiige Zwillinge. Z Augenheilkd 59:264, 1926

46. Schmidt WA: Ophthalmologische untersuchungen bei ein- und zweieiigen Zwillingen. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 80:553, 1928

47. Waardenberg PJ: Refraktion und Zwillingforschung. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 84:593, 1930

48. Huber A: Ophthalmologische untersuchungen an ein-eiigen und zweieiigen Zwillingen. Arch Klaus-Stift Vererb Forsch 6:41, 1931

49. Oberhoff K: Hyperopischer Astigmatismus und Hyperopie bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 107:577, 1941

50. Bücklers M: Hochgradige Myopie bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 102: 144, 1939

51. Hofmann WP, Carey ET: Congenital myopic astigmatism in identical twins. Am J Ophthalmol 25: 1495, 1942

52. Via|lefont H: Symétrie en miroir, pour un oeil seulement, d'un astigmatisme myopique chez deux jumelles. Bull Soc Ophthalmol Fr 1:101, 1949

53. Spengler E: Ist Hornbautastigmatismus vererblich? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 42: 164, 1904

54. Steiger A: Studien über die erblichen Verhäaltnisse der Hornhautkrümmung. Z Augenheilkd 17:307,444, 1907

55. Leibowicz M: Hornhautkrümmung und Astigmatismus. Z Ophthalmol Opt 16:33, 1928

56. Czellitzer A: Der Hornhautastigmatismus, seine Darstel-lung und seine Vererbung. Proceedings of the International Congress on Ophthalmology, Amsterdam, September 1929. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 83:613, 1929

57. Halbertsma KTA: Untersuchungen bei mehrfachen Zwillingspaaren in derselben Familie. Proceedings of the 121h International Congress on Ophthalmology, Amsterdam, September 1929, pp 272–277

58. Motolese A, Berardi M: Hornhautastigmatismus und Vererbung. Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 136:27, 1936

59. Gasser I: Über Vererbung extremer Hornhautkrümmung, thesis. Zürich, 1938

60. Bir6 I: Data concerning the heredity of astigmatism. Ophthalmologica 115: 156, 1948

61. Powell S: Data on the heredity of astigmatism. Optician 116:286, 1948

62. Vogt A: Zur Genese der sphärischen Refraktionen. Ber Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges 44:67, 1924

63. Rieger H, Thums K: Die “lehre” Steigers und die Frage der Erbbedingtheit der Refraktionszustände. Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 144:470, 1942

64. Rieger H, Thums K: Augenärztliche untersuchungen im Rahmen des anthropologischerbbiologischen Vater-schaftnachweises. Wien Med Wochenschr 101:594, 1951

65. Zeki SM: Optic nerve hypoplasia and astigmatism: A new association. Br J Ophthalmol 74:297, 1990

66. Punnett HH, Harley RD: Genetics in pediatric ophthalmology. In Harley RD (ed): Pediatric Ophthalmology, pp 28–81. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1983

67. Kardo Sysoeff W: Zur Lösung des Refraktionsproblems vom Standpunkte der Biologie. Russ Ophthalmol J 5:689. In: Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 77:728, 1924

68. Waardenberg PJ: Total refraction and the variability of its individual components. In Waardenberg PJ, Franceschetti A (eds): Genetics and Ophthalmology, pp 1201–1285. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1963

69. Scherenberg K: Beiträge zur Lehre vom reinen Mikrophthalmus, thesis. Tübingen, 1900 Nagels Jber, 297, 1900

70. Schneidemann TB: High hypermetropia. Ophthalmol Rec 15:468, 1906

71. Leber T: Über höchstgradige Hypermetropie bei Vorhandensein der Krystallinse. Z Augenheilkd 16:286, 1906

72. Clausen W: Hypermetropia permagna (demonstration). Z Augenheilkd 25:113, 1911

73. Vogelsang K: Excessive Hypermetrie bei Konsanguinität der Eltern. Klln Monatsbl Augenheilkd 99:539, 1937

74. Cavallacci G: Ipermetropia famigliare di alto grado. Arch Ottalmol 44: 172, 1937

75. Scardiaccione M: Sopra una malformazione oculare congenita caratterizzata da pseudopapilla da stasi con membrana epipapillare, ipermetropia elevata e formazioni verrucoidi del fondo. Boll Ocul 19:703, 1940

76. Lambert RK, McDonnald CE: Hereditary high hyperopia. Am J Ophthalmol 3: 14, 1931

77. Czellitzer A: Die Vererbung von Augenleiden. Berl Klin Wochenschr 44:2070, 1912

78. Roy FH: Ocular Syndromes and Systemic Disease, p 338. Orlando, FL, Grune & Stratton, 1985

79. Spitznas M, Gerhe E, Bateman JB: Hereditary posterior microphthalmos with papillomacular fold and high hyperopia. Arch Ophthalmol 101:413, 1983

80. Dagi LR, Leys MJ, Hansen RM, Fulton AB: Hyperopia in complicated Leber's congenital amaurosis. Arch Ophthalmol 108:709, 1990

81. Wagner RS, Caputo AR, Nelson LB, Zanoni D: High hyperopia in Leber's congenital amaurosis. Arch Ophthalmol 103:1507, 1985

82. Brodsky MC, Keppen LD, Rice CD, Ranells JD: Ocular and systemic findings in the Aarskog (facial-digital-genital) syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol 109:450, 1990

83. Lin LK, Chen C: Twin study on myopia. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:535, 1987

84. Goldschmidt E: On the Etiology of Myopia. Copehagen, Munksgaard, 1968. In Curtin B J: The Myopias: Basic Science and Clinical Management. Philadelphia, Harper & Row, 1985

85. Karlsson JL: Concordance rates for myopia in twins. Clin Genet 6: 142, 1974

86. Otsuka J: Studies on the influence of heredity and environment on ocular refraction of the eye. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 47:889, 1943

87. Otsuka J: The observation of the myopic fundus changes in twins. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 52:16, 1948

88. Otsuka J: The result of eye and refraction examination of 300 sets of twins. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 64:46, 1950

89. Bloch I: Discussion on heredity of myopia. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 71:764, 1923

90. Schokking CT: Uitbreiding van het Tweelingonderzoek in Nederland, thesis. Leiden, 1931

91. von Rötth A: Ueber Augenhefund von Zwillingen. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 98:636, 1937

92. Bouterwek H: Erhebungen an eineiigen Zwillingspaaren über Erbanblage und Umwelt als Charakterbildner. Z Menschl Vererb Konstit Lehre 20:265, 1936

93. Dahl EO: The refraction of children. Am J Ophthalmol 19:422, 1936

94. Holste A: Die Refraktionsverhaltnisse bei ein- und zwei-eiigen Zwillingen. Graefes Arch KIln Exp Ophthalmol 142:467. 1941

95. Krüger ME: Zwillingbefunde im Gau Mecklenburg, thesis. Borna, Leipzig, 1937

96. Weber E: Die Vererbung der Refraktion an hand von Älteren und neueren Zwillingsuntersuchungen. KIln Monatsbl Augenheilkd 107:574, 1941

97. Jancke G: Zur Entstehung der Kurzsichtigkeit. KIln Monatsbl Augenheilkd 106:264, 1941

98. Halbertsma KTA: Beobachtungen über die Hornhautkrümmung, Astigmatismus und Refraktion bei mehrfachen Zwillingspaaren. Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 123:632, 1930

99. Gedda L: Studio dei Gamelli. Rome, Orizzonte Medico, 1951

100. Munch O: Uber Anisometropie bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Ber Z Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges 48: 159, 1922

101. Burns RA: Hereditary myopia in identical twins. Br J Ophthalmol 33:491, 1949

102. Masters S: Strabismus in twins. Am J Ophthalmol 35:1825, 1952

103. Meyer-Schwickerath G: Zwillingsstatistische untersuchung uber den Einfluss von Umweltfaktoren auf den Myopiegrad. Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 149:695, 1949

104. Wibaut F: Discussion after Waardenberg. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 76: 138, 1926

105. Marchesani O: Hochgradige Myopic bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 94:97, 1935

106. Grassl R: Dementia praecox bei Zwillingen. Arch Rassen Ges Biol 14:177. 1922

107. Nordlöw W: Fall von spontaner Netzhautablösung bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Acta Ophthalmol 16:579, 1938

108. Steiger A: Uber Erbeinheiten am menschlichen Auge. Z Augenheilkd 34:1, 1915

109. Vogel F, Balthasar G: Über ein männliches eineiiges Zwillingspaar mit angeborenem Nystagmus und Myopie. KIln Monatsbl Augenheilkd 128:456, 1956

110. Weber E: Die Refraktionsverbaltnisse bei Zwillingen. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 106:78, 1941

111. Curtin B J: The Myopias: Basic Science and Clinical Management. Philadelphia, Harper & Row, 1985

112. W61fftin E: Ein myopischer Stammbarm, der über 8 Generationen genau verfolgt werden konnte. Z Menschl Vererb Konstit Lehre 29:243, 1949

113. Paul L: Untersuchungen über die erbliche Entstehung der Kurzsichtigkeit. Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 139:378, 1938

114. Jaensch PA: Erbliche Entstehung der Kurzsichtigkeit. Med Klin 1:69, 1939

115. Basu SK, Jindal A: Genetic aspects of myopia among the Shia Muslim Dawoodi Bohras of Udaipur Rajsthan. Hum Hered 33:163, 1983

116. Fukushita K: Clinical studies on heredity in high myopia. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 86:239, 1982

117. McKusick VA: Mendelian Inheritance in Man: Catalogs of AD, AR and X-Linked Phenotypes. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988

118. Karlsson JL: Evidence for recessive inheritance of myopia. Clin Genet 7:197, 1975

119. Bartsocas CS, Kastrantas AD: X-Linked form of myopia. Hum Hered 31:199, 1981

120. Nakajima A: The interrelationship of optical components of the eye and their hereditability, as studied by phacometry in twins. Jpn J Clin Ophthalmol 14: 1649, 1960

121. Nakajima A: The hereditability estimates of the optical components of the eye and their mutual relationship by a new method of measurements on twins. In: Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Human Genetics, vol 1. Rome, Instituto G. Mendel, 1961

122. Alsbirk PH: Anterior chamber of the eye: A genetic and anthropological study in Greenland Eskimos. Hum Hered 25:418, 1975

123. Alsbirk PH: Corneal diameter in Greenland Eskimos: Anthropometric and genetic studies with special reference to primary angle-closure glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol 53:635, 1975

124. Alsbirk PH: Corneal thickness: II. Environmental and genetic factors. Acta Ophthalmol 56: 105, 1978

125. Albirk PH: Refraction in adult West Greenland Eskimos. Acta Ophthalmol 57:84, 1979

126. Hegmann JP, Mash AJ, Spivey BE: Genetic analysis of human visual parameters in populations with varying incidences of strabismus. Am J Hum Genet 26:549. 1974

127. Sorsby A, Leary GA, Fraser GR: Family studies on ocular refraction and its components. J Med Genet 3:269, 1966

128. Young FA, Leary GA, Baldwin WR et al: The transmission of refractive errors within Eskimo families. Am J Optom 46:676, 1969

129. Krill AE: Hereditary Retinal and Choroidal Diseases, vol 2, Evaluation. Hagerstown, MD, Harper & Row, 1972

130. Roy FH: Ocular Syndromes and Systemic Disease, p 352. Orlando, FL, Grune & Stratton. 1985

131. Spallone A: Stickler's syndrome: A study of 12 families. Br J Ophthalmol 71:504, 1987

132. Ortiz de Zarate J: Recessive sex-linked inheritance of congenital external ophthalmoplegia and myopia coincident with other dysplasias. Br J Ophthalmol 50:606, 1966

133. Salleras A, Ortiz de Zarate J: Recessive sex-linked inheritance of external ophthalmoplegia and myopia coincident with other dysplasias. Br J Ophthalmol 34:662, 1950

134. Gillum WN, Anderson RL: Dominantly inherited blepharoptosis, high myopia and ectopia lentis. Arch Ophthalmol 100:282, 1982

135. Mollica F, LiVolti S, Tomarchio S et al: Autosomal dominant cataract and microcornea associated with myopia in a Sicilian family. Clin Genet 28:42, 1985

136. Gordon RA, Donzis PB: Myopia associated with retinopathy of prematurity. Ophthalmology 93: 1593, 1986

137. Levensohn G: Zur Anatomie des kurzsichtigen Affenauges. Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 100: 138, 1921

138. Behr C: Uber Kurzsichtigkeit bei Affen. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 62:412, 1919

139. Marchesani O: Untersuchungen über die Myopiegenese. Arch Augenheilkd 104:177, 1931

140. Young FA: The effect of restricted visual space on the primate eye. Am J Ophthalmol 52:799, 1961

141. Wiesel TN, Hubel DH, LeVay S: Changes of ocular dominance columns in monocularly deprived monkeys. Abstract from XL Cold Spring Harbor Symposium, The Synapse 40:581, 1975

142. Wiesel TN, Raviola E: Myopia and eye enlargement after neonatal lid fusion in monkeys. Nature 266:66, 1977

143. Raviola E, Wiesel TN: Effect of dark-rearing on experimental myopia in monkeys. InveSt Ophthalmol Vis Sci 17:485, 1978

144. Wiesel TN, Raviola E: Increase in axial length of the macaque monkey eye after corneal opacification. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 18:1232, 1979

145. Raviola E, Wiesel TN: An animal model of myopia. N Engl J Med 312:1609, 1985

146. Guyton DL, Greene PR, Scholz RT: Dark-rearing interference with emmetropisation in the rhesus monkey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 29(suppl):33, 1988

147. Von Noorden GK, Crawford MLJ: Lid closure and refractive error in macaque monkeys. Nature 272:53, 1978

148. Smith EL, Harwerth RS, Crawford MLJ, von Noorden GK: Observations on the effects of form deprivation on the refractive status of the monkey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 28:1236, 1987

149. Holden AL, Hodos W, Hayes BP, Fitzke FW: Myopia: Induced, normal and clinical. Eye 2(suppl):S242, 1988

150. Lloyd RIL: Birth injuries of the cornea and allied conditions. Am J Ophthalmol 21:359, 1938

151. Angell K, Robb RM, Berson FG: Visual prognosis in patients with ruptures in Descemet's membrane due to forceps injuries. Arch Ophthalmol 99:2137, 1981

152. Muramatsu T, Sato A, Tokoro T: Influence of corneal opacities on development of myopia. Folia Ophthalmol Jpn 33:1084, 1982

153. Johnson CA, Post RB, Chalupa LM, Lee TJ: Monocular deprivation in humans: A study of identical twins. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 23: 135, 1982

154. Von Noorden GK, Lewis RA: Ocular axial length in unilateral congenital cataracts and blepharoptosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 28:750, 1987

155. Robb RM: Refractive errors associated with hemangiomas of the eyelids and orbit in infancy. Am J Ophthalmol 83:52, 1977

156. Hoyt CS, Stone RD, Fromer C, Billson FA: Monocular axial myopia associated with neonatal eyelid closure in human infants. Am J Ophthalmol 91:197, 1981

157. Tscherning M: Studier over Myopiens Aetiologi. Copenhagen, 1882. In Curtin B J: The Myopias: Basic Science and Clinical Management. Philadelphia, Harper & Row, 1985

158. Tscherning M: Studier uber die Aetiology de Myopic. Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 29:201, 1883. In Curtin BJ: The Myopias: Basic Science and Clinical Management. Philadelphia, Harper & Row, 1985

159. Cohn H: The Hygiene of the Eye in Schools. Turnbull WP (trans). London, Simpkin, Marshall & Co, 1886

160. Young FA, Beattie R, Newby FJ et al; The Pullman study: A visual survey of Pullman school children. Am J Optom 31:111; 192, 1954

161. Nadell MC, Weymouth FW, Hirsch MJ: The relationship of frequency of the use of the eyes in close work to the distribution of the refractive error in a selected sample. Am J Optom 34:523, 1957

162. Angle J, Wissmann DA: Age, reading and myopia. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 55:302, 1978

163. Richler A, Bear JC: Refraction, near work and education: A population study in Newfoundland. Acta Ophthalmol 58:468, 1980

164. Sorsby A: Race, sex and environment in the development of myopia: Preliminary communication. Br J Ophthalmol 12:197, 1928

165. Post RH: Population differences in visual acuity: A review, with speculative notes on selection relaxation. Eugenics Q 9:189, 1962

Back to Top