Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Nov 4, 2026.

Gene-Environment Interaction in the Onset of Eczema in Infancy: Filaggrin Loss-of-Function Mutations Enhanced by Neonatal Cat Exposure

Hans Bisgaard, Angela Simpson, Colin N.A Palmer and 9 more (opens in a new tab)

PLoS Medicine · 2008

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050131 (opens in a new tab)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Loss-of-function variants in the gene encoding filaggrin (FLG) are major determinants of eczema. We hypothesized that weakening of the physical barrier in FLG-deficient individuals may potentiate the effect of environmental exposures. Therefore, we investigated whether there is an interaction between FLG loss-of-function mutations with environmental exposures (pets and dust mites) in relation to the development of eczema. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used data obtained in early life in a high-risk birth cohort in Denmark and replicated the findings in an unselected birth cohort in the United Kingdom. Primary outcome was age of onset of eczema; environmental exposures included pet ownership and mite and pet allergen levels. In Copenhagen (n = 379), FLG mutation increased the risk of eczema during the first year of life (hazard ratio [HR] 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-4.00, p = 0.005), with a further increase in risk related to cat exposure at birth amongst children with FLG mutation (HR 11.11, 95% CI 3.79-32.60, p < 0.0001); dog exposure was moderately protective (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-1.01, p = 0.05), but not related to FLG genotype. In Manchester (n = 503) an independent and significant association of the development of eczema by age 12 mo with FLG genotype was confirmed (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.13-3.36, p = 0.02). In addition, the risk increased because of the interaction of cat ownership at birth and FLG genotype (HR 3.82, 95% CI 1.35-10.81, p = 0.01), with no significant effect of the interaction with dog ownership (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.16-2.20, p = 0.43). Mite-allergen had no effects in either cohort. The observed effects were independent of sensitisation. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated a significant interaction between FLG loss-of-function main mutations (501x and 2282del4) and cat ownership at birth on the development of early-life eczema in two independent birth cohorts. Our data suggest that cat but not dog ownership substantially increases the risk of eczema within the first year of life in children with FLG loss-of-function variants, but not amongst those without. FLG-deficient individuals may need to avoid cats but not dogs in early life.

References 20

  1. 1.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 5

Questions about this paper

We email you if it is retracted, withdrawn, corrected or flagged.

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.