Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It could be something really simple/basic (genetic-wise) that might cause people to be more likely or less likely to get shingles after being infected with the chicken pox virus, but more likely it could be a combination of genes and gene variations that could cause this difference in the population.
Like anything in genetics, even when certain genes are found, many times it is not automatic that X will always happen. Take for instance breast cancer and the BRCA 1/2 mutations. About 12% of women in the general population will develop breast cancer sometime during their lives, 55 to 65% of women who inherit a BRCA1 mutation and around 45% of women who inherit a BRCA2 mutation will develop breast cancer by age 70 years.
This just goes back to how amazingly complex the human body is, since, lets say they do find a gene or gene mutations that causes someone to more likely come down with shingles than someone without that mutation, it will undoubtedly not be 100%. So there's always other factors that come into play. That's the thing about science, the more answers you discover, the more new questions you get!
Yes, exactly. And, to be clear: the researchers who did the study I mentioned above were very careful to explain that ALL cases of shingles are NOT due to genetics.
Other researchers have found links between shingles and stress, an impaired immune system and the effects of aging.
The genetic component might just make certain people more susceptible to those other factors triggering the shingles virus.
Science is indeed a marvelous and interesting thing.
@RosieSD: Your reference is a 9 year old article from a news agency, not a scientific source. I looked up the article first in Reuters and then in a more scientific source. The conclusion of the scientific article was a big "maybe" and that further research was necessary.https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti...usdisease/9537 There is not much more about this in the ensuing 10 years.
Thanks for the additional link to the other article and noting the date.
However, further research has, indeed, been done in this area since 2008.
As bluedevilz noted above, several of the University of Texas researchers actually did conduct a larger study in 2011, which were published in the Journal of Clinical Virology. I don't want to repeat bluedevilz but since this is a long thread, you may have missed that post. Here is the link again in case you did: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21924676
And, in 2015, another article was published by different researchers from the University of Washington Seattle and Johns Hopkins in the Genes and Immunity Journal.
In that research study, the researchers identified specific gene variants associated with the risk of shingles in certain ethnic populations.
An excerpt from their findings:
In conclusion, we identified HCP5 SNPs that predict risk of herpes zoster diagnosis and age of onset of the disease. Participants with rs114864815 are at less risk and are affected at later ages. We also identified variants that predict risk of herpes zoster near the retrogene DHFR (upstream HLA-B).
Here's the link to the 2015 study, should anyone be interested in reading the full Journal article:
So, further research about the links between shingles and genetics has been done since 2008, although as noted in the 2015 article, this is still a new and developing line of research.
Yes, that is why I was careful to say that there is evidence of a genetic component. I didn't say conclusive proof and neither did the Reuters article (or the researcher who was interviewed in the article) .
Thanks for the link to the other article and noting the date.
By the way, as bluedevilz noted above, several of the University of Texas researchers actually did conduct a larger study in 2011, which were published in the Journal of Clinical Virology. I don't want to repeat bluedevilz but since this is a long thread, you may have missed that post. Here's their conclusion from the Journal of Clinical Virology article:
The results indicate a stronger association between herpes zoster and family history of herpes zoster than previously reported in the literature and suggest a genetic predisposition to herpes zoster may be more frequently inherited along maternal lines. A lower mean age of herpes zoster onset than previously documented in the literature is reported, which has implications for vaccine timing.
Yes, I did see that, too. That was 6 years ago. Since then there hasn't been anything, really, and vaccine recommendations have not changed.
Yes, but wasn't it interesting that the researchers in that study identified specific genes associated with the risk of shingles? Fascinating!
We also need to be careful about saying that no additional research has been done since that Journal article was published two years ago.
Research may well be ongoing, but just hasn't been published yet. As someone in the medical field yourself, I'm sure you're aware of the long time periods required for peer-reviewed medical articles to be published in professional journals.
Of course, as you note, medical recommendations for things like vaccines don't change just because further research is being conducted. But, certainly, this line of research might eventually make it easier to narrow down which people should get the shingles vaccine.
Yes, but wasn't it interesting that the researchers in that study identified specific genes associated with the risk of shingles? Fascinating!
We also need to be careful about saying that no additional research has been done since that Journal article was published two years ago.
Research may well be ongoing, but just hasn't been published yet. As someone in the medical field yourself, I'm sure you're aware of the long time periods required for peer-reviewed medical articles to be published in professional journals.
Of course, as you note, medical recommendations for things like vaccines don't change just because further research is being conducted. But, certainly, this line of research might eventually make it easier to narrow down which people should get the shingles vaccine.
That article was published six years ago, not two.
Everyone is supposed to get the shingles vaccine after age 60. The article was discussing giving it earlier for people who are supposedly genetically predispositioned to get shingles. I doubt any research is going to show that anyone is at zero risk for shingles.
People 60 years of age or older should get shingles vaccine. They should get the vaccine whether or not they recall having had chickenpox, which is caused by the same virus as shingles. Studies show that more than 99% of Americans aged 40 and older have had chickenpox, even if they don't remember getting the disease. There is no maximum age for getting shingles vaccine."
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 09-27-2017 at 09:56 PM..
I finally got the shingles shot, along with the flu shot, today....I am 70. My husband got them too.
My mother got them in her 60's but went to the Dr right away.
My sister in law got them in her 40's or 50's but put off going to the Dr until she was in such pain she went to the ER.
Chicken pox isn't what inoculates you to it. It's German measles. Shingles booster? I had a very minor shingles outbreak a few years ago, after my immune system had been low, due to years of another condition. I had chicken pox as a kid, but not German measles. Anyway, it's too late now for any vaccination or booster, from what I understand, since I've already had that little manifestation of it.
where did you ever get that information? German Measles has nothing to do with shingles.
I didn't go through all them to see if any had a genetic component, but it's obviously an active field of research in many different aspects.
That's good. The more knowledge the better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
