Is rosacea genetic?
Trying to figure out the root cause of rosacea. My parents don't have it, nor does my sister, nor did either of my grandparents have it.
My mother (love her to death) smoked quite a bit when she was carrying me. Could that have caused it?
Curious to know any theories, or evidence for that matter, that are out there.
Yes, it is. It can be carried in a recessive gene that never shows its face until two recessive genes meet. Then Walla. If there was ever a dating game for recessive genes to meet, fall in love and take a vacation, your first question as moderator would be, "Do you have an messenger RNA in your nuclei that predispose you to rosacea?"
Then we would follow them on their date, etc.
I would expect that while it is genetic, it is not simplt one gene that causes rosacea, but genes which contribute to factors associated with rosacea. This may include those that deal in some part with blood vessel structure and those under the immune response banner, the cumalative affect of such Quantataive trait loci, will result in the individual trigger response and condition level
Plus two people they can have the predesposition and only one could cause rosacea to be triggered through sun damage/steroid use/medication etc etc
My brother got it, although, he don't know, yet. He's fifteen and got permenent redness, some flushing problems (though, he don't seem to have as many triggers as me), but luckely, he don't got a big blushing problem.
I don't know what he is thinking, but he don't seem to be bothered. I'm going to tell him when I got a topical nitric oxide blocker or something on hand. Telling him now will only make the problem worse, I guess...or?
Here in Norway, I see rosaceaens all the time. Most of them probably don't know that they got it. I was talking with some guys, it's summer and I counted - seven of tvelv of them flushed. I think it's incredible that it don't get more attention then it has.
precisely sally, the environment obvioulsy has a immense influence on the genetic basis
Lycoan,
If I were a betting man I would agree with you on several genes involved in rosacea. Small differences leading to variable triggers and predisposition to variable symptoms.
However, some of the most complex disorders like Diabetes Type II are found to be started by one single abnormal gene. The gene that produces one protein -- Phosphokinase C Beta II
This one irregularity starts the whole cascade. If we block it in humans and animal models, Diabetes never sets in or Diabetic changes can be reversed.
It is my hypothesis that there are multiple genes involved, but only one or two primary ones that we should focus on first:
1. Protein Kinase in vascular smooth muscle cells
2. Neural receptor on endothelial cell
If you have recessive traits for the above it takes a ton of cumulative insults to bring rosacea to the top. If it is a dominant trait, it may take just one single insult.
The altered immune response, the burning, papules, pustules are mostly secondary to these two changes above. This is becoming clear to the medical community also.
It seems to run in our family but from my Mother's side I reckon although she had perfect skin herself. Both myself and my Sister have rosacea although after 20 years for both of us we appear to be after treatment in remission.
My cousin who was my Mother's Sister's daughter also has rosacea but again has it under control. Can't remember anybody else in our family having the condition although there must have been someone else in the family tree.
Peter
It is my hypothesis that there are multiple genes involved, but only one or two primary ones that we should focus on first:
1. Protein Kinase in vascular smooth muscle cells
2. Neural receptor on endothelial cell
Its a perfectly feasable hypothesis. If the 'negative' allele for either 1 or 2 is dominant and a person is a carrier Or codominance exists and the person is 'negative' homozygous then they would have the rosacea production genes and have rosacea. If your correct and there are 2 main ones, its possible that other rosacean genes are only disease causing, if the person has bothe genes for 1/2 above. other genes could certainly play a part in directing the disease and determining triggers
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote