Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 4;19(3):e0299192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299192

Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: A bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study

Menghao Teng 1,#, Jiachen Wang 2,#, Xiaochen Su 1, Ye Tian 3, Jiqing Wang 1, Yingang Zhang 1,*
Editor: Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi4
PMCID: PMC10911615  PMID: 38437213

Abstract

Background

Previous studies have indicated a heightened susceptibility to cataract and glaucoma among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, while it remains uncertain whether RA is causally associated with cataract and glaucoma. A two-sample mendelian randomization (MR) analysis was used to investigate the causal associations between RA, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations.

Methods

In the European population, genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics for cataract (372,386 individuals) and glaucoma (377,277 individuals) were obtained from the FinnGen consortium (R9), while RA summary data were derived from a meta-analysis of GWAS encompassing 97173 samples. In the East Asian population, summary data for cataract (212453 individuals), glaucoma (212453 individuals), and RA (22515 individuals) were sourced from the IEU Open GWAS project. Inverse-variance weighted (IVW, random-effects) method served as the primary analysis, complemented by MR‒Egger regression, weighted median, weighted mode and simple mode methods. Additionally, various sensitivity tests, including Cochran’s Q test, MR‒Egger intercept, MR pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier test and leave-one-out test were performed to detect the heterogeneity, horizontal pleiotropy and stability of the analysis results.

Results

Following stringent screening, the number of selected instrumental variables ranged from 8 to 56. The IVW results revealed that RA had an increased risk of cataract (OR = 1.041, 95% CI = 1.019–1.064; P = 2.08×10−4) and glaucoma (OR = 1.029, 95% CI = 1.003–1.057; P = 2.94×10−2) in European populations, and RA displayed a positive association with cataract (OR = 1.021, 95% CI = 1.004–1.039; P = 1.64×10−2) in East Asian populations. Other methods also supported those results by IVW, and sensitivity tests showed that our analysis results were credible and stable.

Conclusions

This study revealed a positive causality between RA and the increased risk of cataract and glaucoma, which provides guidance for the early prevention of cataracts and glaucoma in patients with RA and furnishes evidence for the impact of RA-induced inflammation on ophthalmic diseases.

Introduction

Cataract and glaucoma constitute the primary causes of blindness and irreversible vision impairment in developing countries and low-income regions [1, 2]. Cataract is a condition characterized by the opacity of the crystalline lens, which obstructs the passage of light through the lens to the retina [3]. Although the exact pathogenesis of cataract formation remains elusive, it is closely associated with oxidative stress and the natural aging process [1, 4, 5]. Glaucoma is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by the loss of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) [6]. Several factors contribute to RGCs loss in glaucoma, including aging and elevated intraocular pressure [2, 7]. With the aging of the population, the prevalence of cataract and glaucoma has significantly risen. Previous studies indicated that cataract caused visual impairment in 95 million people by 2014 [1], contributing to over 50% of global cases of blindness [8]. In 2020, it was estimated that glaucoma affected 7.96 million individuals and caused blindness in 3.6 million people aged 50 and above [9], with a projected global impact on 111.84 million individuals by 2040 [10]. Therefore, investigating the pathogenesis and early prevention of cataracts and glaucoma remains a central focus of current research.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, autoimmune and inflammatory disease characterized by synovial inflammation, hyperplasia, cartilage and bone destruction, which affects multiple tissues and organs, ultimately leading to joint tissue destruction and chronic disability [11]. As of 2016, the global annual incidence rate of RA is 0.03%, with a prevalence rate of 1% [12]. As a chronic systemic autoimmune disease, inflammation, immunity and heredity are considered to play crucial roles in the development of RA [11, 13]. Numerous studies have explored the potential causal associations between RA and the development of cataracts and glaucoma. For instance, Wenyi Jin et al. reported that cataracts could increase the incidence rate of RA by 71.2% in the European population [14], while Kim SH et al. found that RA was associated with a higher risk of open-angle glaucoma in individuals of Korean ancestry [15]. However, these studies are retrospective, which means that reverse causality and various confounding factors may influence the confidence of these results. Therefore, establishing causal associations between RA and cataracts and glaucoma requires additional evidence from genetic studies.

Mendelian randomization (MR) is an epidemiological research method used to investigate the mechanisms of disease occurrence [16]. In MR analysis, exposure is regarded as an intermediate phenotype, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are selected as instrumental variables (IVs) to examine the causal associations between the exposure phenotype and disease outcome [17]. Since genetic variants are randomly allocated to each individual at conception and remain unaffected by environmental factors, MR can mitigate the influence of confounding factors [18, 19]. In addition, MR helps minimize the bias stemming from reverse causality, as an individual’s genotype is determined at conception and is not affected by disease progression [18, 20]. Widely adopted, MR has been instrumental in exploring causal associations between RA and diverse diseases, spanning cancer [21], inflammatory bowel disease [22], and osteoporosis [23, 24]. This study harnesses genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary data from the FinnGen project, GWAS catalog and IEU Open GWAS project to evaluate the causal associations between RA, cataracts, and glaucoma through a bidirectional two-sample MR analysis.

Materials and methods

Study design

This bidirectional MR analysis was based on GWAS summary data, which were sourced from the FinnGen project, the GWAS catalog (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/) and the IEU Open GWAS database (http://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/). We selected SNPs through a rigorous selection process to serve as IVs for subsequent MR analysis. Three fundamental assumptions must be met in MR analysis (Fig 1). First, the SNPs chosen as IVs should exhibit a robust association with the exposures. Second, these SNPs should be independent of confounding factors related to the exposures and outcome. Third, the selected SNPs should influence the outcome solely through the exposures, without involving other biological pathways. This MR analysis meticulously adhered to the recommendations by the STROBE-MR [25].

Fig 1. The diagram of the bidirectional MR study of the causal associations of RA with cataract and glaucoma.

Fig 1

This diagram illustrates the key assumptions that must be satisfied in the bidirectional MR study. First, the SNPs chosen as IVs should exhibit a robust association with the exposures. Second, these SNPs should be independent of confounding factors related to the exposures and outcome. Third, the selected SNPs should influence the outcome solely through the exposures, without involving other biological pathways. IVs: instrumental variables; MR: mendelian randomization; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; SNPs: single-nucleotide polymorphisms.

Data sources

The GWAS summary data were used to perform the bidirectional two-sample MR analysis. The GWAS summary statistics for cataract and glaucoma, based on the European population, were acquired from the FinnGen consortium (R9), which is one of the largest medicine projects aimed at exploring the genome to improve human health. The cataract summary data encompassed 59,522 cases and 312,864 controls, and the glaucoma summary data consisted of 18,902 cases and 358,375 controls. The summary statistics for RA were derived from a meta-analysis of GWAS encompassing 22,350 cases and 74,823 controls of European ancestry [26].

For East Asian populations, we accessed GWAS summary statistics for cataract, glaucoma and RA from the IEU Open GWAS project (http://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/). The summary data included 212,453 samples (24,622 cases and 187,831 controls) for cataract, 212,453 samples (5,761 cases and 206,692 controls) for glaucoma, and 22,515 samples (4,873 cases and 17,642 controls) for RA. Detailed information on the summary data for European and East Asian cataract, glaucoma and RA used in this study is listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Detailed information on the summary data for European and East Asian cataract, glaucoma and RA.

Population Trait Case Controls Sample size SNP (n) Year Dataset ID
European ancestry Cataract 59522 312864 372386 20170144 2023 finngen_R9_H7_ CATARACTSENILE
Glaucoma 18902 358375 377277 20170237 2023 finngen_R9_H7_ GLAUCOMA
RA 22350 74823 97173 13297690 2022 ebi-a-GCST-90132223
East Asian ancestry Cataract 24622 187831 212453 8885805 2019 bbj-a-94
Glaucoma 5761 206692 212453 8885805 2019 bbj-a-121
RA 4873 17642 22515 6619872 2014 ieu-a-831

SNP (n): the number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms; RA: rheumatoid arthritis.

Selection of IVs

First, in the European population, genome-wide significant SNPs (P<5×10−8) that were strongly associated with the exposures were selected. However, in the East Asian population, the number of SNPs meeting this threshold was not enough to perform the MR analysis when cataract was regarded as the exposure. Therefore, we adopted a higher threshold value (P<5×10−6) to identify relevant IVs in the East Asian population. To ensure the independence of the selected SNPs, we performed a clumping process with r2<0.001 and a window size = 10000 kb to eliminate SNPs with strong linkage disequilibrium. Additionally, to minimize weak instrumental bias and guarantee statistical power, SNPs with F statistics<10 were removed, and the F statistic of each SNP was calculated by the following equation: F=R2(N2)(1R2), where N is the sample size, R2 is genetic variation, and R2 is calculated by the following equation: R2=2×EAF×(1EAF)×β2, in which EAF is the effect allele frequency and β is the allele effect value. Subsequently, we utilized the PhenoScanner V2 website (www.phenoscanner.medschl.cam.ac.uk) to eliminate SNPs associated with the outcome and confounders. The PhenoScanner V2 is a comprehensive database that collects the associations between human genotypes and phenotypes, and all well-known risk factors for cataract and glaucoma were deemed potential confounders in this study, including ageing, smoking, alcohol consumption, glucocorticoid and steroid usage [27, 28]. In reverse MR analyses, SNPs associated with confounders, including smoking and obesity, were excluded by the PhenoScanner V2 in this step [29]. Finally, to guarantee that the effect alleles were the same allele, we harmonized the exposure and outcome data to remove SNPs that were palindromic with intermediate allele frequencies.

Statistical analysis

There were five complementary methods employed in this study to estimate the causal associations between RA and cataract and glaucoma, including inverse-variance weighted (IVW, random-effects), weighted median, MR‒Egger regression, simple mode and weighted mode methods. The IVW method served as the primary analysis method because it assumes that all selected IVs are valid and can provide the most accurate results in the absence of horizontal pleiotropy and heterogeneity [30]. MR‒Egger regression can provide a consistent causal estimate even if all the genetic IVs are invalid [31], and we were particularly interested in its ability to evaluate horizontal pleiotropy through the intercept value. The weighted median method could provide a relatively precise result, even when up to 50% of the information is derived from invalid IVs [32]. In addition, weighted mode and simple mode were employed as supplementary methods to evaluate the causal associations. The statistical power of the MR analysis was calculated by the mRnd (https://shiny.cnsgenomics.com/mRnd/) online MR power calculator. This website relies on the research conducted by Brion MJ et al. [33], who utilized a noncentrality parameter-based method to evaluate MR statistical power.

Sensitivity analysis

A variety of methods were employed to evaluate the sensitivity and stability of the results. First, Cochran’s Q test was used to detect potential heterogeneity by the IVW and MR‒Egger methods. Subsequently, the MR‒Egger intercept test and Mendelian Randomization Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outlier (MR-PRESSO) global test were used to investigate the presence of horizontal pleiotropy. Additionally, the MR-PRESSO outlier and distortion test could also identify the outliers in the associations and correct for horizontal pleiotropy after excluding these outliers [34], and we also reperformed the MR analysis after excluding the outliers. Finally, we performed leave-one-out sensitivity test to assess the stability and validity of the causal effect estimates by excluding IVs one at a time.

All statistical analyses were executed using R software (version 4.2.1) with the R packages "Two sample MR", "forest plot" and "MRPRESSO". P<0.05 indicated statistical significance of causal associations. This study did not need ethical approval, because it was a secondary analysis based on the original research, and each original study used in this analysis obtained informed consent from the participants.

Results

Selection of IVs

After selecting SNPs that were genome-wide independent (r2<0.001, clumping window size = 10000 kb) and significant (P<5×10−8), 76, 38 and 49 SNPs were selected as IVs for RA, cataract and glaucoma in the European population, respectively. Notably, the lowest F-statistic among these SNPs was 237.714, indicating minimal risk of weak instrumental bias. Detailed information on the F-statistic for each SNP can be found in S1 Table. Subsequently, the PhenoScanner V2 website was employed to identify and remove SNPs that were associated with outcome and confounders. Notably, no SNP was excluded during this step. Finally, we harmonized the datasets for exposure and outcome, and SNPs with palindromic intermediate allele frequencies were removed for further MR analysis. In the East Asian population, the selection process of IVs was consistent with the above steps. After rigorous programmatic screening, the number of selected IVs ranged from 8 to 56. A comprehensive list of all IVs used in this study is provided in S2 Table.

Causal associations between RA with cataract and glaucoma in the European population

The MR analysis results employing various methods are depicted in Fig 2 and S1 Fig. The analysis results of IVW genetically indicated that RA was positively associated with cataract (OR = 1.041, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.019, 1.064; P = 2.08×10−4) and glaucoma (OR = 1.029, 95% CI = 1.003, 1.057; P = 2.94×10−2) in the European population (Fig 2). In the reverse MR analyses, the IVW results confirmed that cataract and glaucoma had no causal effect on RA (both P>0.05) in S1 Fig. These findings were consistently supported by other analytical methods, and scatter plots visually reinforced these results (Fig 3). The statistical power of the IVW results can be found in S3 Table, with the lowest statistical power observed at 90% (RA on glaucoma).

Fig 2. MR analysis results of the causal effect of RA on cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian ancestry.

Fig 2

RA: rheumatoid arthritis; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; IVW: inverse variance weighted.

Fig 3. Scatter plots for the causal associations of RA with cataract and glaucoma.

Fig 3

The ordinate in scatter plots is the effect of the instrumental variables on the outcome, and the abscissa is the effect of the instrumental variables on the exposure. The causal effect of each method is represented by the slope of the line. (A) Scatter plot of RA on cataract in the European population; (B) Scatter plot of RA on glaucoma in the European population; (C) Scatter plot of cataract on RA in the European population; (D) Scatter plot of glaucoma on RA in the European population; (E) Scatter plot of RA on cataract in the East Asian population; (F) Scatter plot of RA on glaucoma in the East Asian population; (G) Scatter plot of cataract on RA in the East Asian population; (H) Scatter plot of glaucoma on RA in the East Asian population. RA: rheumatoid arthritis.

Notably, Cochran’s Q test revealed the presence of heterogeneity in all associations (all P<0.05). Then, the Egger intercept provided no evidence supporting horizontal pleiotropy in all analysis results (P>0.05), except for the association of RA on glaucoma (P = 0.029). The MR-PRESSO global test suggested the existence of horizontal pleiotropy in all associations (all P values of MR-PRESSO global test<0.05). Moreover, the MR-PRESSO outlier test identified a series of significant outliers in these associations (S4 Table), and we conducted additional MR analyses after removing these outliers. The IVW method showed that our analysis results were stable and reliable. The distribution of IVs was symmetric in funnel plots after excluding the outliers (S2 Fig), and both heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy were no longer present (P>0.05). The summarized sensitivity analysis results are presented in Table 2. Finally, the leave-one-out sensitivity tests indicated that most of the analysis results were stable and reliable (S3 Fig).

Table 2. The sensitivity analysis results in European and East Asian ancestry.

Population Exposure Outcome Cochran’s Q test Egger Intercept test MR-PRESSO
Q-IVW P value Egger-intercept P value P value of global test P value of distortion test
European ancestry RA Cataract# 67.961 0.068 -0.003 0.208 0.059 NA
RA Cataract* 121.891 5.65*10−07 -0.004 0.102 <0.001 0.533
RA Glaucoma# 57.251 0.254 -0.005 0.068 0.204 NA
RA Glaucoma* 91.247 0.002 -0.007 0.029 0.001 NA
Cataract RA# 26.261 0.662 0.001 0.943 0.665 NA
Cataract RA* 167.709 5.88*10−20 0.011 0.591 <0.001 0.075
Glaucoma RA# 40.370 0.177 -0.001 0.964 0.209 NA
Glaucoma RA* 1429.142 1.75*10−275 0.024 0.711 <0.001 <0.001
East Asian ancestry RA Cataract* 34.647 0.216 0.003 0.462 0.175 NA
RA Glaucoma# 34.708 0.179 -0.009 0.322 0.235 NA
RA Glaucoma* 46.543 0.021 -0.009 0.346 0.030 0.593
Cataract RA* 9.614 0.211 -0.077 0.297 0.362 NA
Glaucoma RA* 17.308 0.240 -0.017 0.712 0.266 NA

RA: rheumatoid arthritis; IVW: inverse variance weighted; MR-PRESSO: mendelian randomization pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier. #: The sensitivity analysis after removing the outliers identified by the MR-PRESSO test. *: The sensitivity analysis before removing the outliers identified by the MR-PRESSO test.

Causal associations between RA with cataract and glaucoma in the East Asian population

We also conducted MR analysis in the East Asian population, and the results by various methods are summarized in Fig 2 and S1 Fig. In the East Asian population, the IVW method genetically predicted that RA was associated with an elevated risk of cataract (OR = 1.021, 95% CI = 1.004, 1.039; P = 1.64×10−2), which is consistent with other methods. The statistical power of the IVW analysis result was 71% (S3 Table). However, the IVW result showed that RA had no significant effect on glaucoma (P = 0.818, Fig 2). Additionally, reverse MR analyses indicated that cataract and glaucoma were not positively associated with RA (both P>0.05, S1 Fig), consistent with other methods. Scatter plots provided a more intuitive representation of these results in Fig 3.

Notably, heterogeneity was not observed in these associations according to Cochran’s Q test (all P>0.05), except for the association of RA on glaucoma (P = 0.021). The Egger intercept also provided no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy in all analysis results (all P>0.05). The MR-PRESSO global test found no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy in most associations, except the connection of RA on glaucoma (P of MR-PRESSO global test = 0.030). Moreover, the MR-PRESSO outlier test identified rs3819720 as an outlier in the association of RA on glaucoma. Following the exclusion of this outlier, the IVW analysis result remained stable, with no observed horizontal pleiotropy or heterogeneity (P>0.05). The distribution of IVs in funnel plots was symmetric, as shown in S2 Fig. The final results of sensitivity analysis are shown in Table 2. Finally, the leave-one-out tests demonstrated that excluding any single SNP did not substantially influence the causal associations (S3 Fig), which indicated that our results were stable and reliable.

Discussion

This study systematically evaluated the genetic causal associations between RA with cataract and glaucoma in both European and East Asian populations. The GWAS summary data for cataract and glaucoma in European populations were derived from the 9th version of the FinnGen GWAS summary statistics, while summary data for RA were obtained from the European GWAS catalog (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/). For the East Asian population, GWAS summary data for cataract, glaucoma and RA were all extracted from the IEU Open GWAS project (http://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/). All IVs underwent a rigorous selection process, resulting in the identification of 8 to 56 SNPs that were considered suitable for MR analysis. The IVW results indicated a positive genetic association between RA and an increased risk of cataract and glaucoma in the European population. Furthermore, RA exhibited a slightly increased risk of cataract in the East Asian population. However, reverse MR analyses suggested that cataract and glaucoma had no causal effect on RA. These findings provide valuable insights into early prevention strategies for cataract and glaucoma in individuals with RA and underscore the influence of RA-induced inflammation on ophthalmic diseases.

RA is a significant contributor to joint pain and dysfunction, particularly among the elderly, with its incidence on the rise each year [35]. It is characterized by inflammatory changes in the synovial membrane of joints and erosive arthritis [36]. Oxidative stress has gained increasing attention in recent decades as a key player in the development of RA [37]. Elevated levels of reactive oxygen species, a prominent biomarker of oxidative stress, have been observed in both the mitochondria and blood of RA patients [38, 39]. These reactive oxygen species can directly or indirectly cause damage to articular cartilage, leading to the degradation of proteoglycans and the inhibition of their synthesis [40]. Oxidative stress is also recognized as a driving factor in the pathogenesis of cataract, where an imbalance in the lens’s redox state, driven by oxidative stress, contributes to cataract development [5, 41, 42]. Additionally, oxidative stress accelerates the loss of lens epithelial cells, which is a critical factor in cataract development [4, 43]. Oxidative stress plays a vital role in the development of both RA and cataract. Previous studies have reported a connection between RA and cataract. For example, Akintayo RO et al. observed cataract in 26% of RA patients in a study involving 50 individuals from the African population [44], and Black RJ et al. posited that RA could contribute to cataract development [45]. Consistent with these previous studies, our study confirmed a heightened risk of cataract in individuals with RA in European and East Asian populations, and these analysis results were credible and stable. We can summarize that RA can increase the risk of cataract on the basis of the above results. Interestingly, while a recent random forest analysis suggested that cataract might increase the risk of RA among individuals of European ancestry [14], our findings revealed that cataract had no causal effect on RA in both European and East Asian populations. This discrepancy could potentially be attributed to the influence of confounding factors such as aging and smoking. Therefore, it is essential to further validate this result in the future.

Additionally, local inflammation is a central element in the development of RA. Inflammatory factors and chemokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL) and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP), are upregulated in the synovial macrophages and dendritic cell subsets of RA patients [11, 46]. These inflammatory mediators lead to cartilage degradation, bone erosion, and the acceleration of RA development [47]. Similarly, inflammation plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis of glaucoma [48]. Inflammatory factors, such as TNF, IL-1β, IL-18 and MMP, can promote the death of RGCs, which is a hallmark of glaucoma development [48, 49]. Several previous studies have explored the associations between RA and glaucoma. For instance, Kim SH et al. conducted a propensity-matched cohort study involving the Korean population, revealing that RA could elevate the risk of open-angle glaucoma [15]. However, our MR analysis contradicted Kim SH et al.’s findings. We observed no causal effect of RA on glaucoma in the East Asian population. In contrast, we found a positive association between RA and glaucoma in the European population. Given these differing results, it is essential to emphasize the need for further validation of the association between RA and glaucoma. Interestingly, the findings from our MR analysis align with those of the previous random forest analysis, which showed that glaucoma is not causally linked to an elevated risk of RA [14]. This consistency underscores that glaucoma does not actively promote the development of RA in individuals of European and East Asian ancestry.

A main advantage of this study design is that the causal associations are not disturbed by potential confounders and reverse causality. In addition, multiple sensitivity analyses were used to guarantee that the MR analysis results were stable in this study. However, there are also several limitations in the current MR study. Initially, it is worth noting that several insignificant analysis results in this study exhibit relatively low MR statistical power, and a cautious approach is warranted when interpreting these conclusions. Additionally, we performed the MR analysis using only European and East Asian ancestry. Therefore, it should be applied cautiously to other populations. In addition, due to the inherent characteristics of the GWAS data, detailed clinical information on participants, including specifics on steroid use in RA patients, was not available. Consequently, we were unable to conduct further subgroup analyses to evaluate the potential impact of associated drug use on the occurrence of glaucoma and cataract. Moreover, the pathogenesis of RA causing the development of cataract and glaucoma is still unclear and needs more research in the future.

Conclusions

Our MR analyses revealed that RA was a risk factor for cataract and glaucoma. Moreover, cataract and glaucoma had no effect on RA in reverse MR analyses. We believe that oxidative stress and local inflammation are responsible for these causal associations. The results of this study can offer guidance on the early prevention of cataract and glaucoma in RA patients and provide some evidence for the influence of RA-induced inflammation on ophthalmic diseases.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. MR analysis results of the causal effect of cataract and glaucoma on RA in European and East Asian ancestry.

SNP (n): the number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; IVW: inverse variance weighted.

(TIF)

pone.0299192.s001.tif (1.8MB, tif)
S2 Fig. Funnel plots for the causal associations of RA with cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian ancestry.

The symmetry of the distribution of IVs can reflect the existence of horizontal pleiotropy to some extent. (A) Funnel plot of RA on cataract in the European population; (B) Funnel plot of RA on glaucoma in the European population; (C) Funnel plot of cataract on RA in the European population; (D) Funnel plot of glaucoma on RA in the European population; (E) Funnel plot of RA on cataract in the East Asian population; (F) Funnel plot of RA on glaucoma in the East Asian population; (G) Funnel plot of cataract on RA in the East Asian population; (H) Funnel plot of glaucoma on RA in the East Asian population. RA: rheumatoid arthritis; IVs: instrumental variables.

(TIF)

pone.0299192.s002.tif (6.7MB, tif)
S3 Fig. The leave-one-out sensitivity tests of the causal associations of RA with cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian ancestry.

(A) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of RA on cataract in the European population; (B) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of RA on glaucoma in the European population; (C) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of cataract on RA in the European population; (D) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of glaucoma on RA in the European population; (E) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of RA on cataract in the East Asian population; (F) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of RA on glaucoma in the East Asian population; (G) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of cataract on RA in the East Asian population; (H) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of glaucoma on RA in the East Asian population. RA: rheumatoid arthritis.

(TIF)

pone.0299192.s003.tif (7.9MB, tif)
S1 Table. The F statistics of SNPs in MR analyses.

SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism; Beta: estimate coefficient; P value: P value from GWAS; SE: standard error of coefficient estimate; R2: the variance of exposure explained by each IV.

(XLSX)

pone.0299192.s004.xlsx (31.2KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Detailed information on instrumental variables used in MR analyses.

SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism; Beta: Estimate coefficient; P value: P value from GWAS; SE: standard error of coefficient estimate.

(XLSX)

pone.0299192.s005.xlsx (35.4KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. The statistical power of IVW results in this study.

IVW: inverse variance weighted.

(XLSX)

pone.0299192.s006.xlsx (9.2KB, xlsx)
S4 Table. The SNPs eliminated by MR-PRESSO outlier test.

SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism; MR-PRESSO: Mendelian Randomization Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outlier.

(XLSX)

pone.0299192.s007.xlsx (9.6KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

All genetic summary data were obtained from FinnGen, GWAS catalog and IEU Open GWAS project. We thank all the participants and coordinators for the data used in this study.

Data Availability

All the data used in this study are publicly available. The summary statistics of cataract and glaucoma in the European population were obtained from the FinnGen database at https://r9.finngen.fi/. The summary statistics for rheumatoid arthritis in the European population were obtained from the GWAS catalog at http://www.ebi.ac.uk/. The GWAS summary statistics of East Asian cataract, glaucoma and rheumatoid arthritis were all extracted from the IEU Open GWAS project at http://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Shaanxi Provincial Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (No. 2021-04-ZZ-003). Financial support had no impact on the outcomes of this study.

References

  • 1.Liu YC, Wilkins M, Kim T, Malyugin B, Mehta JS. Cataracts. Lancet. 2017;390(10094):600–12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30544-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Weinreb RN, Aung T, Medeiros FA. The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. Jama. 2014;311(18):1901–11. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.3192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shiels A, Hejtmancik JF. Mutations and mechanisms in congenital and age-related cataracts. Exp Eye Res. 2017;156:95–102. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2016.06.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Huang J, Yu W, He Q, He X, Yang M, Chen W, et al. Autophagy facilitates age-related cell apoptosis-a new insight from senile cataract. Cell Death Dis. 2022;13(1):37. doi: 10.1038/s41419-021-04489-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rong X, Qiu X, Jiang Y, Li D, Xu J, Zhang Y, et al. Effects of histone acetylation on superoxide dismutase 1 gene expression in the pathogenesis of senile cataract. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34704. doi: 10.1038/srep34704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Guttenplan KA, Stafford BK, El-Danaf RN, Adler DI, Münch AE, Weigel MK, et al. Neurotoxic Reactive Astrocytes Drive Neuronal Death after Retinal Injury. Cell Rep. 2020;31(12):107776. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Greco A, Rizzo MI, De Virgilio A, Gallo A, Fusconi M, de Vincentiis M. Emerging Concepts in Glaucoma and Review of the Literature. Am J Med. 2016;129(9):1000.e7–.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.03.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sabanayagam C, Wang JJ, Mitchell P, Tan AG, Tai ES, Aung T, et al. Metabolic syndrome components and age-related cataract: the Singapore Malay eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(5):2397–404. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-6373 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262–7. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.081224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2081–90. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.McInnes IB, Schett G. The pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(23):2205–19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1004965 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Smolen JS, Aletaha D, McInnes IB. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2016;388(10055):2023–38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30173-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Scherer HU, Häupl T, Burmester GR. The etiology of rheumatoid arthritis. J Autoimmun. 2020;110:102400. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2019.102400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Jin W, Yao Q, Liu Z, Cao W, Zhang Y, Che Z, et al. Do eye diseases increase the risk of arthritis in the elderly population? Aging (Albany NY). 2021;13(11):15580–94. doi: 10.18632/aging.203122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kim SH, Jeong SH, Kim H, Park EC, Jang SY. Development of Open-Angle Glaucoma in Adults With Seropositive Rheumatoid Arthritis in Korea. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e223345. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.3345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Xu M, Li S, Zhu J, Luo D, Song W, Zhou M. Plasma lipid levels and risk of primary open angle glaucoma: a genetic study using Mendelian randomization. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020;20(1):390. doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01661-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bowden J, Holmes MV. Meta-analysis and Mendelian randomization: A review. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(4):486–96. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zhou H, Zhang Y, Liu J, Yang Y, Fang W, Hong S, et al. Education and lung cancer: a Mendelian randomization study. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(3):743–50. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Smith GD, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33(1):30–42. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zhao H, Zhu J, Ju L, Sun L, Tse LA, Kinra S, et al. Osteoarthritis & stroke: a bidirectional mendelian randomization study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2022;30(10):1390–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yuan S, Chen J, Ruan X, Vithayathil M, Kar S, Li X, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis and risk of site-specific cancers: Mendelian randomization study in European and East Asian populations. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):270. doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02970-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Meisinger C, Freuer D. Rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease: A bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022;55:151992. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.151992 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Deng Y, Wong MCS. Association Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoporosis in Japanese Populations: A Mendelian Randomization Study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023;75(8):1334–43. doi: 10.1002/art.42502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Liu YQ, Liu Y, Chen ZY, Li H, Xiao T. Rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis: a bi-directional Mendelian randomization study. Aging (Albany NY). 2021;13(10):14109–30. doi: 10.18632/aging.203029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Skrivankova VW, Richmond RC, Woolf BAR, Davies NM, Swanson SA, VanderWeele TJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. Bmj. 2021;375:n2233. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ishigaki K, Sakaue S, Terao C, Luo Y, Sonehara K, Yamaguchi K, et al. Multi-ancestry genome-wide association analyses identify novel genetic mechanisms in rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Genet. 2022;54(11):1640–51. doi: 10.1038/s41588-022-01213-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yuan S, Wolk A, Larsson SC. Metabolic and lifestyle factors in relation to senile cataract: a Mendelian randomization study. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):409. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-04515-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lee SS, Mackey DA. Glaucoma—risk factors and current challenges in the diagnosis of a leading cause of visual impairment. Maturitas. 2022;163:15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.van der Woude D, van der Helm-van Mil AHM. Update on the epidemiology, risk factors, and disease outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2018;32(2):174–87. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2018.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Burgess S, Dudbridge F, Thompson SG. Combining information on multiple instrumental variables in Mendelian randomization: comparison of allele score and summarized data methods. Stat Med. 2016;35(11):1880–906. doi: 10.1002/sim.6835 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(2):512–25. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40(4):304–14. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21965 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brion MJ, Shakhbazov K, Visscher PM. Calculating statistical power in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(5):1497–501. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Verbanck M, Chen CY, Neale B, Do R. Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases. Nat Genet. 2018;50(5):693–8. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0099-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Finckh A, Gilbert B, Hodkinson B, Bae SC, Thomas R, Deane KD, et al. Global epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2022;18(10):591–602. doi: 10.1038/s41584-022-00827-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zhou S, Lu H, Xiong M. Identifying Immune Cell Infiltration and Effective Diagnostic Biomarkers in Rheumatoid Arthritis by Bioinformatics Analysis. Front Immunol. 2021;12:726747. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.726747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zamudio-Cuevas Y, Martínez-Flores K, Martínez-Nava GA, Clavijo-Cornejo D, Fernández-Torres J, Sánchez-Sánchez R. Rheumatoid Arthritis and Oxidative Stress. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2022;68(6):174–84. doi: 10.14715/cmb/2022.68.6.28 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mateen S, Moin S, Khan AQ, Zafar A, Fatima N. Increased Reactive Oxygen Species Formation and Oxidative Stress in Rheumatoid Arthritis. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0152925. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152925 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Quiñonez-Flores CM, González-Chávez SA, Del Río Nájera D, Pacheco-Tena C. Oxidative Stress Relevance in the Pathogenesis of the Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6097417. doi: 10.1155/2016/6097417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hadjigogos K. The role of free radicals in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Panminerva Med. 2003;45(1):7–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ottonello S, Foroni C, Carta A, Petrucco S, Maraini G. Oxidative stress and age-related cataract. Ophthalmologica. 2000;214(1):78–85. doi: 10.1159/000027474 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Babizhayev MA. Mitochondria induce oxidative stress, generation of reactive oxygen species and redox state unbalance of the eye lens leading to human cataract formation: disruption of redox lens organization by phospholipid hydroperoxides as a common basis for cataract disease. Cell Biochem Funct. 2011;29(3):183–206. doi: 10.1002/cbf.1737 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ji Y, Cai L, Zheng T, Ye H, Rong X, Rao J, et al. The mechanism of UVB irradiation induced-apoptosis in cataract. Mol Cell Biochem. 2015;401(1–2):87–95. doi: 10.1007/s11010-014-2294-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Akintayo RO, Adelowo OO, Egajifo O, Popoola RA, Odunlami GJ, Emorinken A, et al. The impact of ocular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis on the health-related quality of life and the functional ability of black Africans. Int Ophthalmol. 2019;39(5):1003–12. doi: 10.1007/s10792-018-0902-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Black RJ, Hill CL, Lester S, Dixon WG. The Association between Systemic Glucocorticoid Use and the Risk of Cataract and Glaucoma in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0166468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166468 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Li K, Wang M, Zhao L, Liu Y, Zhang X. ACPA-negative rheumatoid arthritis: From immune mechanisms to clinical translation. EBioMedicine. 2022;83:104233. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lin YJ, Anzaghe M, Schülke S. Update on the Pathomechanism, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options for Rheumatoid Arthritis. Cells. 2020;9(4). doi: 10.3390/cells9040880 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Vohra R, Tsai JC, Kolko M. The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 2013;58(4):311–20. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2012.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Fontaine V, Mohand-Said S, Hanoteau N, Fuchs C, Pfizenmaier K, Eisel U. Neurodegenerative and neuroprotective effects of tumor Necrosis factor (TNF) in retinal ischemia: opposite roles of TNF receptor 1 and TNF receptor 2. J Neurosci. 2002;22(7):Rc216. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-07-j0001.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi

6 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-32641Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis and cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

  • Please attend to reviewers' comments.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 20 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi, M.D., FRCS (Glasgow)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This work was supported by the Shaanxi Provincial Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (No. 2021-04-ZZ-003). Financial support had no impact on the outcomes of this study."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Title

I suggest removing the word “and” before cataract so as to be

‘Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study’

Introduction

Page 4 line 47,48: “Currently, the global annual incidence rate of RA is 0.03%, 48 with a prevalence rate of 1%”. The reference used is 2016 which is not recent at all.

Materials and Methods

The number of cases and controls in the east Asian population is significantly lower than European ancestry. Also, the years of selection are in 2 different decades.

Results

The results of sensitivity tests written in text are different from table 2.

Examples:

Page 11 line 201-205:

“Notably, Cochran's Q test revealed the presence of heterogeneity in all associations 202 (all P<0.05).

The MR-PRESSO global test suggested the existence of horizontal pleiotropy in all associations (all P values of MR-PRESSO global test<0.05)”.

While in table 2, results of p-values are different.

Page 13 line 230-234:

“Notably, heterogeneity was not observed in these associations according to Cochran's 230 Q test (all P>0.05), except for the association of RA on glaucoma (P=0.021). The Egger 231 intercept also provided no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy in all analysis results (all 232 P>0.05). The MR-PRESSO global test found no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy in 233 most associations, except the connection of RA on glaucoma (P of MR-PRESSO global 234 test=0.030)”

Where are these p-values in table 2?

If results in table 2 are the finalized results and different from that of text plz clarify this

Discussion

I would like to thank the authors for these detailed and well-explained discussion. However, there are many confounding factors that could contribute to development of cataract and glaucoma in RA patients e.g., steroid intake in these patients which is known cause of cataract and glaucoma and daily doses can differ between patients. So, absence of assessment of drug history in these patients could have biased the results.

Page 15 line 282: “However, it is essential to underscore that further validation of this result is imperative”. This sentence needs re-phrasing for more clarification.

Page 16 line 289, 290: “Inflammatory factors such as TNF, IL and MMP can promote the death of RGCs, which is a hallmark of glaucoma development [40, 41]”

Which ILs are involved in development of glaucoma? In comparison to those responsible for RA.

The full name of RGCS should be mentioned.

Reviewer #2: I am pleased to review the manuscript. Here are some comments to the authors:

1. Abstract: It is recommended to show the data sources and sample sizes of exposures and outcomes in this section. In addition, the authors are also suggested to add the number of SNPs in this part.

2. Introduction, lines 60-63: Need references for the content.

3. Introduction: In this part, the authors are recommended to show some previous Mendelian randomization (MR) studies related to rheumatoid arthritis. For example, PMID: 37039764, 34015765, 35303571, and 36514134.

4. Materials and methods: A STROBE-MR checklist (PMID: 34702754) will be useful for readers to know the components of the current MR study.

5. IV selection: To ensure the SNPs were not related to potential covariates, sometimes we can select SNPs that were exclusively associated with the exposures. Such a method can be added a sensitivity analysis for the present study.

6. Statistical analysis: The authors should clearly state what types of IVW they used (fixed-effects or random-effects).

7. Discussion, lines 257-259: Need references for the content.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sally S Mohamed

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 4;19(3):e0299192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299192.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Jan 2024

Response to Reviewers

Submission Number: PONE-D-23-32641

Title of Paper: Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis and cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study

Dear Editors,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments. We addressed each of the points raised by the reviewers and modified the manuscript accordingly. All changes are highlighted in Yellow.

Response to Editor

According to your suggestions, we have made the following changes in the revised manuscript: 1: We revised our manuscript to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2: We state what role the funders took in the study, “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript”. 3: We provide the correct grant numbers for the awards we received for our study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 

Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Title

I suggest removing the word “and” before cataract so as to be

‘Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study’

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive suggestion regarding the title.

We appreciate your attention to detail. Following your guidance, we have revised the title as recommended, and it now reads: “Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study”

2. Introduction

Page 4 line 47,48: “Currently, the global annual incidence rate of RA is 0.03%, 48 with a prevalence rate of 1%”. The reference used is 2016 which is not recent at all.

Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestions.

I appreciate your attention to detail and the opportunity to clarify this aspect of our presentation. We have made a correction in the revised manuscript.

Location: Introduction section, Line 53-54: “As of 2016, the global annual incidence rate of RA is 0.03%, with a prevalence rate of 1% [12].”

Reference:

12. Smolen JS, Aletaha D, McInnes IB. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2016;388(10055):2023-38.

3. Materials and Methods

The number of cases and controls in the east Asian population is significantly lower than European ancestry. Also, the years of selection are in 2 different decades

Response: Thank you for your constructive comments.

We appreciate your insightful observation regarding the limitations in the number of cases and controls within the East Asian population, as well as the variations in the years of selection spanning two different decades. The scarcity of open databases for East Asian populations presented a challenge, leading us to utilize the GWAS summary data available in the IEU OPEN GWAS project. It is essential to acknowledge the constraints inherent in the East Asian databases, characterized by older data, limited sample size, and non-synchronicity in data collection across the decades. Moving forward, we aspire to conduct further analyses with newer and more extensive databases to strengthen the robustness of our study.

4. Results

The results of sensitivity tests written in text are different from table 2.

Examples:

Page 11 line 201-205:

“Notably, Cochran's Q test revealed the presence of heterogeneity in all associations 202 (all P<0.05).

The MR-PRESSO global test suggested the existence of horizontal pleiotropy in all associations (all P values of MR-PRESSO global test<0.05)”.

While in table 2, results of p-values are different.

Page 13 line 230-234:

“Notably, heterogeneity was not observed in these associations according to Cochran's 230 Q test (all P>0.05), except for the association of RA on glaucoma (P=0.021). The Egger 231 intercept also provided no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy in all analysis results (all 232 P>0.05). The MR-PRESSO global test found no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy in 233 most associations, except the connection of RA on glaucoma (P of MR-PRESSO global 234 test=0.030)”

Where are these p-values in table 2?

If results in table 2 are the finalized results and different from that of text plz clarify this

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and careful review of our manuscript.

I sincerely apologize for any confusion caused by the discrepancy between the results presented in the manuscript and Table 2 regarding the sensitivity tests. To address this concern, we have made the necessary clarification in the revised manuscript. The results presented in Table 2 now include both the results after removing outliers and before such removal, providing a comprehensive overview of the sensitivity analysis.

Location: Results section, Line 228-232: “

Table 2: The sensitivity analysis results in European and East Asian ancestry.

Population Exposure Outcome Cochran's Q test Egger Intercept test MR-PRESSO

Q-IVW P value Egger-intercept P value P value of global test P value of distortion test

European ancestry RA Cataract# 67.961 0.068 -0.003 0.208 0.059 NA

RA Cataract* 121.891 5.65*10-07 -0.004 0.102 <0.001 0.533

RA Glaucoma# 57.251 0.254 -0.005 0.068 0.204 NA

RA Glaucoma* 91.247 0.002 -0.007 0.029 0.001 NA

Cataract RA# 26.261 0.662 0.001 0.943 0.665 NA

Cataract RA* 167.709 5.88*10-20 0.011 0.591 <0.001 0.075

Glaucoma RA# 40.370 0.177 -0.001 0.964 0.209 NA

Glaucoma RA* 1429.142 1.75*10-275 0.024 0.711 <0.001 <0.001

East Asian ancestry RA Cataract* 34.647 0.216 0.003 0.462 0.175 NA

RA Glaucoma# 34.708 0.179 -0.009 0.322 0.235 NA

RA Glaucoma* 46.543 0.021 -0.009 0.346 0.030 0.593

Cataract RA* 9.614 0.211 -0.077 0.297 0.362 NA

Glaucoma RA* 17.308 0.240 -0.017 0.712 0.266 NA

RA: rheumatoid arthritis; IVW: inverse variance weighted; MR-PRESSO: mendelian randomization pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier. #: The sensitivity analysis after removing the outliers identified by the MR-PRESSO test. *: The sensitivity analysis before removing the outliers identified by the MR-PRESSO test.”

5. Discussion

I would like to thank the authors for these detailed and well-explained discussion. However, there are many confounding factors that could contribute to development of cataract and glaucoma in RA patients e.g., steroid intake in these patients which is known cause of cataract and glaucoma and daily doses can differ between patients. So, absence of assessment of drug history in these patients could have biased the results.

Response: Thank you for raising a crucial concern regarding potential confounding factors, particularly steroid intake in RA patients and their impact on the development of cataract and glaucoma.

We genuinely appreciate your insightful observation. Unfortunately, due to the limitations of available GWAS data, detailed clinical information, including medication history, was not accessible. Consequently, we were unable to conduct subgroup analyses to specifically address the influence of steroid medication on the occurrence of cataract and glaucoma in RA patients.

In our IVs selection process, we diligently excluded known confounding factors such as aging, smoking, and steroid use to the best extent possible. However, we acknowledge the limitation imposed by the lack of detailed medication history.

Location: Discussion section, Line 326-331: “In addition, due to the inherent characteristics of the GWAS data, detailed clinical information on participants, including specifics on steroid use in RA patients, was not available. Consequently, we were unable to conduct further subgroup analyses to evaluate the potential impact of associated drug use on the occurrence of glaucoma and cataract.”

Page 15 line 282: “However, it is essential to underscore that further validation of this result is imperative”. This sentence needs re-phrasing for more clarification.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback.

I appreciate your observation regarding the clarity of the sentence in question. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the sentence in the discussion section for improved clarity.

Location: Discussion section, Line 297-298: “Therefore, it is essential to further validate this result in the future.”

Page 16 line 289, 290: “Inflammatory factors such as TNF, IL and MMP can promote the death of RGCs, which is a hallmark of glaucoma development [40, 41]”

Which ILs are involved in development of glaucoma? In comparison to those responsible for RA.

The full name of RGCS should be mentioned.

Response: Thank you for providing valuable feedback.

I sincerely appreciate your insightful comments regarding our manuscript. I apologize for the oversight in not explicitly mentioning which interleukins involved in the development of glaucoma. In line with your suggestion, we have made the necessary additions to the revised manuscript to address this omission.

Location: Results section, Line 305-306: “Inflammatory factors, such as TNF, IL-1β, IL-18 and MMP, can promote the death of RGCs, which is a hallmark of glaucoma development [48, 49].”

Reference:

48. Vohra R, Tsai JC, Kolko M. The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 2013;58(4):311-20.

49. Fontaine V, Mohand-Said S, Hanoteau N, Fuchs C, Pfizenmaier K, Eisel U. Neurodegenerative and neuroprotective effects of tumor Necrosis factor (TNF) in retinal ischemia: opposite roles of TNF receptor 1 and TNF receptor 2. J Neurosci. 2002;22(7):Rc216.

Moreover, I would like to assure you that the full name of RGCs, namely retinal ganglion cells, has already been provided in the manuscript, specifically in the Introduction section, Line 41.

Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Abstract: It is recommended to show the data sources and sample sizes of exposures and outcomes in this section. In addition, the authors are also suggested to add the number of SNPs in this part.

Response: Thank you sincerely for your invaluable comments.

I greatly appreciate your guidance. In response to your suggestions, we have incorporated information on data sources and sample sizes of exposures and outcomes, along with the number of SNPs, into the Abstract section of the revised manuscript.

Location: Abstract section, Line 9-15: “In the European population, genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics for cataract (372,386 individuals) and glaucoma (377,277 individuals) were obtained from the FinnGen consortium (R9), while RA summary data were derived from a meta-analysis of GWAS encompassing 97173 samples. In the East Asian population, summary data for cataract (212453 individuals), glaucoma (212453 individuals), and RA (22515 individuals) were sourced from the IEU Open GWAS project.” Line 22-23: “Following stringent screening, the number of selected instrumental variables ranged from 8 to 56.”

2. Introduction, lines 60-63: Need references for the content.

Response: Thank you for the helpful comments.

As your guidance, we add the references in this part. After being revised, the manuscript has become rigorous.

Location: Introduction section, Line 66-69: “In MR analysis, exposure is regarded as an intermediate phenotype, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are selected as instrumental variables (IVs) to examine the causal associations between the exposure phenotype and disease outcome [17].”

Reference:

17. Bowden J, Holmes MV. Meta-analysis and Mendelian randomization: A review. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(4):486-96.

3. Introduction: In this part, the authors are recommended to show some previous Mendelian randomization (MR) studies related to rheumatoid arthritis. For example, PMID: 37039764, 34015765, 35303571, and 36514134.

Response: Thank you sincerely for your invaluable comments.

I truly appreciate your guidance. In accordance with your suggestion, we have incorporated relevant MR studies related to rheumatoid arthritis into the Introduction section. Please see the revised manuscript.

Location: Introduction section, Line 73-76: “Widely adopted, MR has been instrumental in exploring causal associations between RA and diverse diseases, spanning cancer [21], inflammatory bowel disease [22], and osteoporosis [23, 24].”

Reference:

21. Yuan S, Chen J, Ruan X, Vithayathil M, Kar S, Li X, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis and risk of site-specific cancers: Mendelian randomization study in European and East Asian populations. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):270.

22. Meisinger C, Freuer D. Rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease: A bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022;55:151992.

23. Deng Y, Wong MCS. Association Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoporosis in Japanese Populations: A Mendelian Randomization Study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023;75(8):1334-43.

24. Liu YQ, Liu Y, Chen ZY, Li H, Xiao T. Rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis: a bi-directional Mendelian randomization study. Aging (Albany NY). 2021;13(10):14109-30.

4. Materials and methods: A STROBE-MR checklist (PMID: 34702754) will be useful for readers to know the components of the current MR study.

Response: Thank you for providing constructive suggestions.

I appreciate your guidance, and in response to your recommendation, we have included the STROBE-MR checklist in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript. This addition aims to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the components of the current MR study.

Location: Materials and methods section, Line 90-91: “This MR analysis meticulously adhered to the recommendations by the STROBE-MR [25].”

Reference:

25. Skrivankova VW, Richmond RC, Woolf BAR, Davies NM, Swanson SA, VanderWeele TJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. Bmj. 2021;375:n2233.

5. IV selection: To ensure the SNPs were not related to potential covariates, sometimes we can select SNPs that were exclusively associated with the exposures. Such a method can be added a sensitivity analysis for the present study.

Response: Thank you for bringing up this important consideration.

We appreciate your attention to the IVs selection process in MR analysis. To ensure the robustness of our approach, we employed a meticulous method. Initially, we selected SNPs that demonstrated significance (P<5×10-8 or P<5×10-6) and independence (r2<0.001, with a window size of 10000 kb) in relation to the exposure. Subsequently, we systematically excluded weak IVs with F-statistics exceeding 10. To further enhance the reliability of our IVs, we utilized the PhenoScanner V2 website (www.phenoscanner.medschl.cam.ac.uk) to meticulously exclude SNPs associated with outcome and potential confounders. As a result, all the final SNPs included in our analysis are robustly associated with the exposure, while demonstrating no significant associations with outcome variables and confounding factors.

6. Statistical analysis: The authors should clearly state what types of IVW they used (fixed-effects or random-effects).

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments.

I appreciate your observation, and I apologize for the oversight in not explicitly specifying the type of IVW method utilized in our analysis. In this MR study, we employed the IVW (random-effects) method as the primary analysis. Additionally, to ensure a comprehensive assessment of causal associations between RA, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations, we complemented the primary analysis with MR‒Egger regression, weighted median, weighted mode, and simple mode methods.

Location: Abstract section, Line 15-17: “Inverse-variance weighted (IVW, random-effects) method served as the primary analysis, complemented by MR‒Egger regression, weighted median, weighted mode and simple mode methods.” Materials and methods section, Line 144-147: “There were five complementary methods employed in this study to estimate the causal associations between RA and cataract and glaucoma, including inverse-variance weighted (IVW, random-effects), weighted median, MR‒Egger regression, simple mode and weighted mode methods.”

7. Discussion, lines 257-259: Need references for the content.

Response: Thank you for the helpful comments.

As your guidance, we add the references in this section. Please see the revised manuscript.

Location: Discussion section, Line 273-275: “RA is a significant contributor to joint pain and dysfunction, particularly among the elderly, with its incidence on the rise each year [35]. It is characterized by inflammatory changes in the synovial membrane of joints and erosive arthritis [36].”

Reference:

35. Finckh A, Gilbert B, Hodkinson B, Bae SC, Thomas R, Deane KD, et al. Global epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2022;18(10):591-602.

36. Zhou S, Lu H, Xiong M. Identifying Immune Cell Infiltration and Effective Diagnostic Biomarkers in Rheumatoid Arthritis by Bioinformatics Analysis. Front Immunol. 2021;12:726747.

Best wishes!

Yingang Zhang Ph.D., M.D.

Department of Orthopedics

The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University

E-Mail: zyingang@mail.xjtu.edu.cn

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0299192.s008.docx (37.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi

8 Feb 2024

Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study

PONE-D-23-32641R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi, M.D., FRCS (Glasgow)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for addressing all reviewers' comments and concerns.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank the authors for their vigorous efforts and addressing all comments and presenting such comprehensive work

Reviewer #2: The authors’ responses have answered all earlier comments. I don't have any further comments on the current version.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sally S Mohamed

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi

23 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-32641R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. MR analysis results of the causal effect of cataract and glaucoma on RA in European and East Asian ancestry.

    SNP (n): the number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; IVW: inverse variance weighted.

    (TIF)

    pone.0299192.s001.tif (1.8MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Funnel plots for the causal associations of RA with cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian ancestry.

    The symmetry of the distribution of IVs can reflect the existence of horizontal pleiotropy to some extent. (A) Funnel plot of RA on cataract in the European population; (B) Funnel plot of RA on glaucoma in the European population; (C) Funnel plot of cataract on RA in the European population; (D) Funnel plot of glaucoma on RA in the European population; (E) Funnel plot of RA on cataract in the East Asian population; (F) Funnel plot of RA on glaucoma in the East Asian population; (G) Funnel plot of cataract on RA in the East Asian population; (H) Funnel plot of glaucoma on RA in the East Asian population. RA: rheumatoid arthritis; IVs: instrumental variables.

    (TIF)

    pone.0299192.s002.tif (6.7MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. The leave-one-out sensitivity tests of the causal associations of RA with cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian ancestry.

    (A) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of RA on cataract in the European population; (B) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of RA on glaucoma in the European population; (C) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of cataract on RA in the European population; (D) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of glaucoma on RA in the European population; (E) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of RA on cataract in the East Asian population; (F) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of RA on glaucoma in the East Asian population; (G) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of cataract on RA in the East Asian population; (H) Leave-one-out sensitivity test of glaucoma on RA in the East Asian population. RA: rheumatoid arthritis.

    (TIF)

    pone.0299192.s003.tif (7.9MB, tif)
    S1 Table. The F statistics of SNPs in MR analyses.

    SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism; Beta: estimate coefficient; P value: P value from GWAS; SE: standard error of coefficient estimate; R2: the variance of exposure explained by each IV.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0299192.s004.xlsx (31.2KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Detailed information on instrumental variables used in MR analyses.

    SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism; Beta: Estimate coefficient; P value: P value from GWAS; SE: standard error of coefficient estimate.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0299192.s005.xlsx (35.4KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. The statistical power of IVW results in this study.

    IVW: inverse variance weighted.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0299192.s006.xlsx (9.2KB, xlsx)
    S4 Table. The SNPs eliminated by MR-PRESSO outlier test.

    SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism; MR-PRESSO: Mendelian Randomization Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outlier.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0299192.s007.xlsx (9.6KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0299192.s008.docx (37.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All the data used in this study are publicly available. The summary statistics of cataract and glaucoma in the European population were obtained from the FinnGen database at https://r9.finngen.fi/. The summary statistics for rheumatoid arthritis in the European population were obtained from the GWAS catalog at http://www.ebi.ac.uk/. The GWAS summary statistics of East Asian cataract, glaucoma and rheumatoid arthritis were all extracted from the IEU Open GWAS project at http://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES