Multiple Sclerosis: Exploring the Limits of Genetic and Environmental Susceptibility

A. General Model Specifications and Definitions for Genetic Susceptibility to MS

We consider a general population (Z), which is composed of (N) individuals (k = 1,2, …, N) who are living under the prevailing environmental conditions during some specific Time Period (T) – conditions that are designated, generically, as (E_T). In Table 1, we define the different parameters used in our analysis and, in Table 2, we provide a set of parameter abbreviations, which are used for the purposes of notational simplicity. The subset (MS) is defined to include all individuals within (Z) who either have or will develop MS over the course of their lifetime. The occurrence of (MS) represents the event that an individual, randomly selected from (Z), belongs to this (MS) subset and the term P(MS|E_T) represents the probability of this event, given the prevailing environmental conditions of (E_T) – i.e., P(MS|E_T) = P(MS|Z, E_T). This probability is referred to as the “penetrance” of MS for the population (Z) during the Time Period (E_T). The occurrence of (G) is defined as the event that an individual, randomly selected from (Z), is a member of the (G) subset. The term P(G|E_T) represents the probability of this event given the prevailing environmental conditions of (E_T). In turn, the (G) subset is defined to include all individuals (genotypes) within (Z) who have any non-zero chance of developing MS under some (unspecified and not necessarily realized) environmental conditions, regardless of how small that chance might be. We assume that a person’s genotype is independent of the environmental conditions that prevail during (E_T). Therefore:

In this circumstance, each of the (m ≤ N) individuals in the (G) subset (i = 1,2, …, m) has a unique genotype (G_i). The occurrence of (G_i) represents the event that an individual, randomly selected from (Z), belongs to the (G_i) subset – a subset consisting of only a single individual (i.e., the so-called “i^th susceptible individual” or “i^th individual”) – and the term {P(G_i) = 1/N} represents the probability of this event. Therefore, it follows from the definition of the (G) subset that, if every relevant environmental condition – see below – is possible during some Time Period (E_T), then, during this Time Period:

The conditional probabilities: {x_i = P(MS|G_i, E_T)} and: {x = P(MS|G, E_T)}, are referred to as the “penetrance” of MS, during (E_T), respectively, for i^th susceptible individual and for the (G) subset. Clearly, the penetrance of MS, both for the individual and for the group, will vary depending upon the likelihood of different environmental conditions during different Time Periods. If the environmental conditions during some Time Periods were such that certain members of the (G) subset have no possibility of ever developing MS then, for these individuals, during these Time Periods:

Because, currently, some individuals do develop MS, it must be that, during our “current” Time Period:

However, if, at some other time, the environmental conditions were such that no member of (G) could ever develop MS then, during these Time Periods:

We also define a subset , which consists of all women within the (G) subset {i.e., }, and we define the proportion of women in (G) as: p = P(F|G). In this circumstance, each of the (m * p) women in the subset (d = 1,2, …, mp) has a unique genotype . The occurrence of represents the event that an individual, randomly selected from (Z), belongs to the subset – a subset consisting of only the d^th susceptible woman – and the term represents the probability of this event. Also, represents the probability of the event that an individual, randomly selected from (Z), belongs to the subset.

Individuals, who do not belong to the (G) subset, belong to the mutually exclusive (complimentary) subset (G^c), which consists of all individuals who have no chance, whatsoever, of developing MS, regardless of any environmental experiences that they either have had or could have had. The occurrence of (G^c) is defined as the event that an individual, randomly selected from the population (Z), is a member of the (G^c) subset. The term P(G^c|E_T) represents the probability of this event, given the environmental conditions of (E_T). Consequently, each of the (m^c = N − m) “non-susceptible” individuals in the (G^c) subset (j = 1,2, …, m^c) has a unique genotype (G_j). As above, the occurrence of (G_j) represents the event that an individual, randomly selected from (Z), belongs to the (G_j) subset – a subset also consisting of a single individual. The term {P(G_j) = 1/N} represents the probability of this event. Thus, under any environmental conditions, during any Time Period:

Notably, “identical” twins, despite having nearly “identical” genotypes (IG), nevertheless, still have subtle genetic differences from each other. Thus, even if these subtle differences are irrelevant to MS susceptibility (as seems likely, and which we assume to be true), these differences still exist. Consequently, every individual – i.e., each complete genotype (G_i) and (G_j) – in the population is unique. Despite this uniqueness, however, we can also define a so-called “susceptibility-genotype” for the i^th susceptible individual such that this genotype consists of all (and only) those genetic factors, which are related to MS susceptibility. Because the specification of such a susceptibility-genotype necessarily includes many fewer genetic factors than the i^th individual’s complete genotype, it is possible that one or more other individuals in the population share the same susceptibility-genotype with the i^th individual. For example, in this conceptualization, MZ-twins would necessarily belong to the same susceptibility-genotype. We refer to the group of individuals, who belong to the i^th susceptibility-genotype, either as the (G_is) subset within (Z) or as the “i-type” group. Similarly, we refer to individuals who are members of this subset, as “i-type” individuals. In this case, the occurrence of (G_is) represents the event that a person, randomly selected from (Z), belongs to the (G_is) subset, which consists of only a single i-type. The term P(G_is) represents probability of this event. Clearly, because some members of (G) are MZ-twins, the total number of such i-type groups in the population (m_it) will be less than (m). In addition, we define the family {G_s} to include all the (G_is) subsets (or i-type groups) within (Z) and define the event {G_s} as representing the union of the disjoint (G_is) events such that:

Because every susceptible person belongs to one and only one of these i-type groups, the probability of this event is expressed as:

We also define the set (X) to be the set of penetrance values for members of the (G) subset during some Time Period. Provided that the variance of (X) is not equal to zero {i.e., }, the subset (G) can be further partitioned into two mutually-exclusive subsets, (G1) and (G2), suitably defined, such that the penetrance of MS for the subset (G1) during a certain Time Period is greater than that for (G2). The terms P(G1) and P(G2), represent the probabilities of the events that an individual, randomly selected from (Z), is a member of the subsets (G1) and (G2), respectively. Although many such partitions are possible, for the purposes of the present manuscript, (G1) is generally considered interchangeable with the subset of susceptible women – i.e., (G1) = (F ∩ G) = (F, G) – and (G2) is generally considered interchangeable with the subset of susceptible men – i.e., (G2) = (M ∩ G) = (M, G).

When considering the enrichment of more penetrant genotypes (see Methods #2C), the subsets (F, G) and (M, G) will each be further partitioned into high- and low-penetrance sub-subsets – i.e., (G1^′) and (G2^′), respectively – where the basis for this further partition into (G1^′) and (G2^′) sub-subsets is unspecified. The definitions of, and the probabilities for, these events mirrors that above for (G1) and (G2). Moreover, although the basis for this further partition must be something other than gender, it can be anything else that creates a partition, and it doesn’t need to be the same basis for both genders.

{NB: A note on terminology. When a claim refers to any partition of the (G) subset, the probabilities of developing MS (i.e., the penetrance of MS) for members of the (G1) and (G2) subsets are designated, respectively, such that: x₁ = P(MS|G1) and: x₂ = P(MS|G2). When the partition is based specifically on gender, and to avoid any confusion with our Time Period designations, the group of females/women are indicated, alternatively, either by an upper-case (F) or by a lower-case (w). Similarly, in these circumstances, males/men are indicated, alternatively, either by an upper-case (M) or by a lower-case (m) – see Table 2. In some circumstances (when the meaning is clear), for purposes of notational simplicity, the designations of (x₁) and (x₂) continue to be used to designate the penetrance of MS for the subsets of susceptible women (x₁) and men (x₂). In other circumstances, however, greater clarity is provided by using the letter designations. For example, considering the partition of (G) into the subsets (F, G) and (M, G), the penetrance of MS for susceptible women and men are designated, respectively, as (Zw) and (Zm) such that: x₁ = Zw = P(MS|F, G) and: x₂ = Zm = P(MS|M, G) – see Table 2.

Moreover, although this manuscript focuses on the gender partition for the disease MS, the Models developed pertain to any partition for any disease, which has data analogous to that found in Canada for the gender partition of MS [6,7].}

B. General Model Specifications and Definitions for Environmental Susceptibility to MS

The term {E_i} represents the family of specific sets of environmental exposures, each of which, by itself, is sufficient to cause MS to develop in the i^th susceptible individual. Each set within the {E_i} family must be distinct (in some respect) from every other set within this family but, otherwise, there can be any degree of overlap between the factors or events that comprise these sets. Also, there can be any number of sets within the {E_i} family although, because (∀ G_i ∈ G: x_i > 0) under some environmental conditions, the family cannot be empty. If we assign (v_i) to the number of sets of sufficient exposures for the i^th susceptible individual, then {E_i} represents the family of sets: ; and P({E_i}|E_T) represents the probability of the event that, at least, one of these sets of sufficient exposures occurs, given the prevailing environmental conditions of the time (E_T). Moreover, if more than one individual belongs to a particular i-type group, each group-member will share the same {E_i} family of sufficient exposures as the i^th individual.

Notably, also, the probability, P({E_i}), depends entirely upon the actual environmental conditions that prevail during any Time Period – i.e., conditions that are fixed for any specific (E_T). Thus: where (A_i) represents an unknown constant. This constant (A_i) may be different for each {E_i} and, also, it may be different during different Time Periods. Consequently, during any (E_T), each {E_i} represents a population-wide exposure – i.e., an exposure that is “available” to everyone. However, whether anyone, in particular the i^th susceptible individual, experiences that exposure, is a different matter (see below).

Also, for MS to develop in the i^th susceptible individual, the events {E_i} and (G_i) must occur jointly – i.e., the individual (G_i) must experience at least one of the {E_i} environments. This joint occurrence is represented by the subset ({E_i}, G_i). The occurrence of ({E_i}, G_i) represents the event that an individual, randomly selected from (Z), is both in the (G_i) subset (described above) and that they experience an environment sufficient to cause MS in them. The probability of this event, given that this person is a member of (G) subset and given that they are living during (E_T), is represented as P({E_i}, G_i|G, E_T). If the event (G_i) occurs without {E_i}, then whatever exposure does occur, it is insufficient, and the i^th individual cannot develop MS. However, the relationship between one individual’s family of sufficient exposures to that of others may be complex. For example, every individual (or i-type) may have a family with sets unique to them or, alternatively, the families for any two or more individuals (not in the same i-type group) may overlap to any degree, even to the point where their families are identical. If every susceptible individual has an identical family of sufficient environmental exposures, then: ∀(i): P({E_i}, G_i|G, E_T) = P({E_i}|G, E_T). If some individuals can develop MS under any environmental condition, then, for these individuals: P({E_i}, G_i|G, E_T) = P(G_i|G, E_T). And, finally, if there are (s_e) specific sets of environmental exposure (e = 1,2, …, s_e) that are sufficient to cause MS in any susceptible individual, then, for the family {E_e} of these sets of environmental exposure:

C. Circumstances Relating to Twins and Siblings of Individuals with MS

The terms (MZ), (DZ), and (S) represent, respectively, the subsets of MZ-twins, DZ-twins, and non-twin sib-ships within (Z). The occurrence of (MZ), (DZ), or (S) represents the event that an individual, selected at random from (Z), belongs, respectively, to each of these subsets and the terms P(MZ), P(DZ), P(S) represent the respective probabilities of these events. For clarity, the randomly selected individual is always referred to as the “proband twin” or the “proband sibling” depending upon the subset to which they belong. The other member (or members) of the twinship or sibship are always referred to as the “co-twin(s)” or “co-sibling(s)”.

D. Adjustments for the Shared Environment of Twins

Lastly, the term P(MS|IG_MS, E_T), represents the proband-wise concordance rate for MZ-twins during (E_T) – i.e., P(MS|MZ_MS, E_T) – which has been adjusted for the fact that concordant MZ-twins, in addition to sharing their “identical” genotypes (IG), also disproportionately share their (E_twn) and (E_sib) environments with each other. Such an adjustment may be necessary because, if these disproportionately shared environmental experiences contribute to causing MS in the co-twin, they could also increase the likelihood of MS developing in the proband twin and such a circumstance could, potentially, alter our conclusions regarding the nature of genetic susceptibility in the population.

Because, by definition (see above): where: ∀(i): (i = 1,2, …, m):

In this way, the probability of the proband being a member of the (MS, E, G_i) subset, given the fact that their co-twin is a member of the (MS, MZ) subset, is expressed as: P(MS, E, G_i|MZ_MS). This probability can then be re-expressed as the product of three component probabilities – the probability of MS developing in an MZ-proband (G_i) who experiences a sufficient environment, the probability that this MZ-proband experiences an environment sufficient to cause MS, and the probability of this MZ-proband being a member of the (G_i) subset – where each probability is conditioned on the proband having an MZ co-twin, who is a member of the (MS, MZ) subset within (Z).

For susceptible probands who are members of (G), but who may or may not be from twinships or sibships where the co-twin or a co-sibling is a member of the (MS) subset, the analogous probabilities can be written: where: ∀(i): (i = 1,2, …, m):

Therefore, to estimate the desired “adjusted” probability, P(MS|IG_MS), we need to remove the impact of the shared environment of MZ-twins, while leaving the genetic impact of being MZ-twins unchanged. Thus, we define:

Moreover, we note that the conditioning events (E, G_i) and (E, G_i, MZ_MS) both represent the same underlying event for the proband – i.e., the event that the i^th susceptible individual (the MZ-proband) experiences an environment sufficient to cause MS in them. In this circumstance, therefore:

Incorporating this equivalence, into the above definitions, yields:

Therefore, summarizing the above arguments, the term (IG_MS) is defined such that:

And, therefore, the desired “adjusted” probability, P(MS|IG_MS), can be expressed such that:

Effectively, this adjustment equates to a thought-experiment, in which susceptible MZ-twins are separated at conception, and in which the proband twin experiences random (E_twn), (E_sib), and (E_pop) environments, just as would any other member of the (G) subset, given the environmental conditions of the time (E_T).

In addition, as discussed previously (Methods #1B), the available evidence suggests that the (E_sib) environment has no impact on the likelihood of a susceptible individual subsequently developing MS [9-15]. If this evidence is correct, it will also be the case that: which represents the probability that the event (MS) occurs for an individual, randomly selected from (Z), given that they are both a member of the (G) subset and that they have an environmental experience sufficient to cause MS in them.

{NB: This definition represents the intended meaning of the “adjusted” proband-wise recurrence rate for MZ-twins – i.e., P(MS|IG_MS). The next section (which can be skipped) is devoted to estimating an adjustment that matches this definition and that is derived from directly observed epidemiological data.}

E. Characterizing Genetic Susceptibility to MS in a Population

From these Model specifications and definitions, we can use estimated values for observable population parameters to deduce the value of the non-observable parameter P(MS|G, E_T), which represents the probability of the event that an individual, randomly selected from (Z), will develop MS over the course of their lifetime, given that they are a member of the (G) subset and given the prevailing environmental conditions of (E_T). From the definition of (G), as noted earlier:

Therefore, because genotype is assumed to be independent of the prevailing environmental conditions of (E_T):

Rearrangement of this equation, yields:

Consequently, the value of P(G) can be estimated using the data from any specific Time Period (E_T) – including ours – during which: P(MS|E_T) > 0. Therefore, considering only our “current” Time Period, this equation can be simplified to yield:

Moreover, once the value of P(G) is established, it can then be used to assess the nature of MS pathogenesis. For example, if: {P(G) = 1} – i.e., if the penetrance of MS for the population (Z) is the same as that for the subset (G) – then anyone can get MS under the appropriate environmental conditions. By contrast, if: {P(G) < 1} – i.e., if the penetrance of MS for the population (Z) is the less than that for the subset (G) – then only certain individuals in the general population (Z) have any possibility of getting MS. In this circumstance, MS must be considered a “genetic” disorder (i.e., unless a person has the appropriate genotype, they have no chance, whatsoever, of getting MS, regardless of their environmental exposure). Importantly, even if MS is “genetic” in this sense, this has no bearing upon whether disease pathogenesis also requires the co-occurrence of specific environmental events.

In this analysis, two basic Models are used to estimate the values of various unknown epidemiological parameters of MS. The first Model takes a cross-sectional approach, in which deductions are made from the epidemiological data obtained during a single Time Period (i.e., the “current” Time Period). This will be referred to as the Cross-sectional Model. The second Model takes a longitudinal approach, in which deductions are made both from the “current” epidemiological data and from the observed changes in MS epidemiology that have taken place over the past 4–5 decades [3,6]. This will be referred to as the Longitudinal Model. These two Models are independent of each other although both incorporate many of the same observed and non-observed epidemiological parameters, which are important for MS pathogenesis. The Cross-sectional Model derives theoretical relationships between different epidemiologic parameters, but it also makes two assumptions regarding MZ-twin data to establish these relationships (see below; Methods #3). These two assumptions are also commonly made by other studies, which analyze MZ-twin data, and each has observational data to support them [17-19]. Nevertheless, both for Assertions A–D and for Equations 4a and 4b (see below), these conditions need to be assumed. By contrast, the Longitudinal Model does not make either of these assumptions to estimate possible ranges for the non-observed parameters and several possible conditions for this Longitudinal Model are depicted in Figures 1–4 (see below).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Response curves representing the likelihood of developing MS in genetically susceptible women (black lines) and men (red lines) with an increasing probability of a “sufficient” environmental exposure – see Methods #1B. The curves depicted are “strictly” proportional, meaning that the environmental threshold is the same for both men and women – i.e., under conditions in which: (λ = 0) – see Text. The blue lines represent the change in the (F:M) sex ratio (plotted at various scales) with increasing exposure. The thin grey vertical lines represent the portion of the response curve that covers the change in the (F:M) sex ratio from 2.2 to 3.2 (i.e., the actual change observed in Canada [6] between Time Periods #1 & #2). The grey lines are omitted under circumstances either where these observed (F:M) sex ratios are not possible or where both (Zw > Zm) and an increasing (F:M) sex ratio are not possible. Response curves A and B reflect conditions in which (R > 1); whereas curves C and D reflect conditions in which (R < 1). If (R = 1), the blue line would be flat. Response curves A and C reflect conditions in which (c = d = 1); whereas curves B and D reflect those conditions in which (c < d = 1). Under the conditions for curves A and B (R ≥ 1), there is no possibility that the (F:M) sex ratio will be observed to increase with increasing exposure. Under the conditions of curve C – i.e., (c = d = 1) and (R < 1) – at no exposure level is it possible that: Thus, the only “strictly” proportional model that could possibly account for an increasing (F:M) sex ratio, and for the fact that: (Zw₂ > Zm₂), is a Model in which (c < d ≤ 1) and (R < 1) – i.e., curve D.

For both Models, the first step is to assign acceptable ranges for the value of certain “observed” parameters (e.g., twin and sibling concordance rates, the population prevalence of MS, or the proportion of women among MS patients). These ranges are assigned such that they always include their calculated 95% CIs. However, for certain parameters, the ranges considered plausible are expanded beyond the limits set by the CIs. The second step is to assign acceptable ranges for the “non-observed” parameters (e.g., the proportion of susceptible persons in the population or the proportion of women among susceptible individuals). These ranges are assigned such that they cover the entire “plausible” range for each such parameter. In both Models, a “substitution” analysis is undertaken to determine those parameter combinations (i.e., solutions), which fit within the acceptable ranges for both the observed and non-observed parameters. These solutions are then used to assess their implications about the basis of genetic and environmental susceptibility to MS in the population. For each Model, the total number of parameter combinations interrogated in this manner was ∼10¹¹.

A. Observed Parameter Values

For notational simplicity, we sometimes use subscripts (1) and (2) to indicate the parameter values at Time Period #1 and Time Period #2 {e.g., P(MS)₂ = P(MS|E_T) at Time Period #2}. For the purposes of this analysis, those parameter-values observed for persons born between 1976 and 1980 (i.e., Time Period #2) are always taken to be the “current” values and, when only this Time Period is being considered, the terms (E_T) and the subscript (2) are often omitted entirely to simplify the notation.

{NB: In general, for individuals born during Time Period #2 (1976–1980), their MS status cannot be determined until 25-35 years later (i.e., 2001–2015). The estimates of other epidemiological parameters are from reports in the Time Period of (2001–2015), which is also when the Time Period #2 (F:M) sex ratio is assessed [6,7,11-15]. For this reason, Time Period #2 is fixed as the “current” period. However, because the (F:M) sex ratio has increased between every previous 5-year epoch and Time Period #2 [6], the choice of any specific Time Period #1 is equivalent to any other. For our Time Period #1, we chose the 5-year epoch (1941–1945) because it was the earliest epoch with the narrowest CI [6].}

The 2010 Canadian census [20], reported that the proportion of women among the general Canadian population (Z) is 50.4%. Thus, men and women comprise essentially equal proportions of this population and, therefore, the probabilities of the events that an individual, randomly selected from (Z), is a woman or a man – P(F) and P(M) respectively – are each ∼50%. Therefore, by definition:

Currently, the proband-wise concordance rate [16] for MS in MZ-twins, observed in Canada, is: with (n = 146) twin-pairs included in this estimation [7]. Therefore, the 95% CI for this parameter, calculated from an exact binomial test [21], is:

The estimates, from different studies, for the “current” proportion of women among the MS patients – i.e., P(F|MS)₂ − in North America ranges between 66% and 76% [3]. For the Cross-sectional Model, we expanded the “plausible” range beyond the 95% CI calculated from “current” Canadian data presented below [6]. Thus, for this Model, we considered the range:

The reason for this is because the “current” estimated range from the Canadian study is quite narrow and some solutions, which fall within the range of different estimates from other locations in North America [3], might be excluded. This choice permits a wider range of possibilities to be considered as solutions for our Cross-sectional Model.

By contrast, for our Longitudinal Model, because we were interested specifically in how the parameter P(F|MS) has changed for the Canadian population over time [6], we used the 95% CIs (from this single study) to estimate the ranges for this parameter value during each Time Period. For example, the proportion of women among the MS patients in Canada was 69% for patients born during Time Period #1 (1941–1945) and this proportion was significantly less (p < 10⁻⁶) than the 76% observed for patients born during the “current” Time Period #2 (1976–1980) [6]. Although the authors of this study, do not report the actual numbers of individuals in each 5-year epoch, they do report that their 5-year samples averaged 2,400 individuals per epoch [6]. Also, the authors graphically present the 95% CIs for the (F:M) sex ratio during each of these 5-year epochs in the manuscript Figure [6]. Estimating that the number of individuals in both Time Periods #1 and #2 is ∼2,000, and using an exact binomial test [21], for our Longitudinal Model, we estimate that:

Both of these ranges exceed those (based on the 95% CIs) presented in the manuscript Figure [6].

The “current” proband-wise concordance rates for MS in female and male MZ-twins, observed in Canada, are 34% and 6.5%, with the total number of female and male twin-pairs included in these calculations being (n₁ = 100) and (n₂ = 46), respectively [7]. Using an exact binomial test [21], and using the definitions provided in Table 2, the CIs for these observations are:

The 95% CI for the difference in MZ-twin concordance between men and women is calculated as:

Previously, we used three independent methods (based on observation) to estimate the value of P(MS)₂ [3]. The first method relied on measures of the population prevalence of MS in North America together with the observed age-distribution for MS-onset, the second method considered the age-specific prevalence of MS in the age-band of 45–54 years, and the third method considered a population-based multiple-cause-of-death study from British Columbia, which reported the proportion of death certificates that mention MS. The parameter-value range supported, collectively, by these different methods was: 0.0025 ≤ P(MS)₂ ≤ 0.0046 [3]. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the present analysis, we expanded the “plausible” range for this parameter to include:

B. Initial Constraints on the Non-Observed Parameter Values

In addition to the observed parameter values (above), and using the definitions in (Table 2), we determined acceptable values for 12 additional parameters: P(G); p = P(F|G) ; x = P(MS|G)₂ ;

Most of these parameters vary depending upon the level of exposure – i.e., all except P(G) and P(F|G). Therefore, the acceptable ranges were estimated for the “current” Time Period #2. In several cases, there are constraints on the values that these non-observed parameters can take. For example, P(MS) has been observed to be increasing, especially (but not only) among women, in many parts of the world between the two Time Periods [6,22-30]. Therefore, the parameter (C) is constrained in three ways such that:

In this case, on theoretical grounds [3], (C) is also constrained such that:

Using the limits, provided earlier, for the proportion of women among MS patients during different Time Periods, the ratio (C) is at its maximum possible value when: and, therefore, on these theoretical grounds (see above), the value of (C) is further constrained such that:

Only the second of these constraints satisfies all three, so that the maximum upper bound for (C) is 0.90. Nevertheless, the actual upper bound for (C) will depend upon the values that P(M|MS)₁ and P(M|MS)₂ take for in any specific solution. Moreover, if (C < 0.25) then there must have been a greater than 4-fold increase in P(MS) for Canada, which has taken place over a 35–40 year-interval. This seems to be an implausibly large increase based on the available data [6,22-30]. Therefore, we conclude that:

Because MS develops in some individuals, the parameter P(G) cannot be equal to 0. Also, because both women and men can develop MS, the parameter P(F|G) cannot be equal to either 0 or 1. Therefore, the plausible ranges for these parameters are:

Furthermore, the penetrance of MS for the subsets (F, G) and (M, G) can be expressed (see above) such that:

Because everyone who develops MS must be a member of the (G) subset, therefore, considering only this subset, the ratio of women to men, during any Time Period can be expressed as:

Consequently, using the definitions provided above and in Table 2, the parameters (x₁), (x₂), (x), (p) and (p^′), during any Time Period for the gender partition, are related such that:

These relationships require no assumptions and (x₁), (x₂), (x), (p) and (p^′) must always satisfy Equations 1a–d during any Time Period, regardless of which Model is employed in the analysis [3].

C. Enrichment of More Penetrant Genotypes

In addition, it can be demonstrated that more penetrant genotypes are “enriched” in the (G, MS), (F, G, MS) and (M, G, MS) subsets compared, respectively, to the subsets of susceptible individuals (G), (F, G) and (M, G). For example, during any Time Period, consider the two ratios, (A) and (B), such that:

Therefore, during any Time Period, both of the following relationships must hold:

Consequently, during any Time Period, it is clear that:

Therefore, if (A < 1 < B) – i.e., if men are more penetrant than women – then:

Conversely, if (A > 1 > B) – i.e., if women are more penetrant than men – then:

In either case, the more penetrant gender can be described as being “enriched” in the (MS) subset in comparison to the (G) subset.

In addition, considered separately, and partitioning each of the subsets (F, G) and (F, G) into their high- and low-penetrance sub-subsets, (G1^′) and (G2^′), respectively – see Methods #1A – an analogous argument demonstrates that an “enrichment” of more penetrant genotypes will also occur within each of these two sub-subsets such that:

D. Other Constraints on the Non-Observed Parameter Values

Based on theoretical considerations (see Methods #2C), we concluded that: (s_a ≥ 1). Indeed, this relationship is confirmed observationally, where the recurrence risk of MS for a proband with a co-twin who is a member of the (DZ_MS) subset, is consistently reported to be greater than the recurrence risk of MS for a proband sibling with a co-sibling, who is a member of the (S_MS) subset [7,31-37]. Therefore, from the definitions of (MZ_MS) and (IG_MS) – see Methods #1C & 1D – it must be the case that, during our “current” Time Period:

Using the previously described constraints (above) on P(MS|MZ_MS)₂, P(MS|F, MZ_MS)₂ and P(MS|M, MZ_MS)₂, therefore, the plausible ranges for (x), (x₁) & (x₂) during the 2^nd Time Period are:

We noted earlier that P(MS|G) varies depending upon P(E). Also, as noted earlier in Methods #1D, the observed MZ-twin concordance rates {i.e., P(MS|MZ_MS, E_T)} may need to be converted into adjusted rates {i.e., P(MS|IG_MS, E_T)} because the observed MZ-twin concordance rate will reflect, in part, any increased likelihood that an MZ-twin proband will develop MS based on their disproportionately sharing the (E_twn) and (E_sib) environments with a co-twin who has (or will develop) MS. Because any such increase represents an environmental effect – i.e., it is caused by twins disproportionately sharing the (E_twn) and (E_sib) environments – the maximum probability of developing MS for susceptible individuals under optimal environmental conditions – i.e., P(MS|G, E) – must be greater (at least marginally, if not more so) than these observed MZ-twin concordance rates [3]. Consequently, using the Table 2 notations, from the definitions of (c) and (d) – see Methods #4A; below – because, currently, (x₁ > x₂), and also because, currently, both P(MS) and P(F|MS) are increasing, each of the following relationships must hold simultaneously:

Notably, these relationships include the possibility that: c = d ≤ 1

Finally, as discussed previously (see Methods #1D and above), we estimate the impact of the disproportionately shared (E_twn) and (E_sib) environments for MZ-twins as:

In the Canadian data [7], the life-time probability of developing MS for the proband of a co-DZ- twin with MS (5.4%) was found to be greater than that for the proband of a non-twin co-sibling with MS (2.9%). From these observations, the point-estimate for (s_a) becomes:

This point estimate is approximately the same for both men and women [3]. Thus, these observations from Canada suggest that sharing the (E_twn) environment with a co-twin who develops MS markedly increases the likelihood of the proband twin developing MS for both men and women [3]. Nevertheless, it is possible that impact of these disproportionately shared environments may be over- or under-estimated by the Canadian data [7]. In any event, based on theoretical considerations (see Methods #1D), if we use the point-estimate from the Canadian data [7] that:

Therefore, for the purpose of both Models, we considered the plausible range for (s_a) to be:

However, because, the point-estimate for (s_a) from the Canadian data [7] is generally greater than that reported in other similar studies [31-37], we also considered, separately, the more restrictive circumstance in which:

Definitions and Assumptions

The subsets (G) and (G^c) have already been defined (see Methods #1A) and as noted there:

Thus, (x_i) represents the MS-penetrance for the i^th individual in the (G) subset during any specific Time Period and it is unique to the i^th individual, regardless of whether it is identical (in value) to that of another individual.

Also, as discussed in Methods #1A, we defined the set (X) to include the penetrance value for each of the (m) members of the (G) subset. Thus: X = {x_i}. Letting (x_G) be a random variable representing any of the {x_i} elements within the set (X), and because, as noted earlier, all genotypes in a population are unique, it follows that:

As noted earlier, if , then the subset (G) can be partitioned into two mutually exclusive subsets, (G1) and (G2), suitably defined, such that:

We now specify our two assumptions:

Assumption #1

Because MZ-twinning is generally thought to be non-hereditary [17-19], we assume that every person (i.e., genotype) in the general population (Z) has the same chance, a priori, of having an MZ-twin (i.e., MZ-status is independent of genotype). Thus, we assume that, for any Time Period:

Because this relationship applies to every genotype in (Z), therefore, also:

If, rarely, MZ-twinning were familial [19], it would still be the case that:

Finally, even if some cases of MZ-twinning were thought to be familial [19], the exact relationship (#2, above) still follows if those genetic factors, which are associated with MZ-twining, are independent of those genetic factors associated with MS. Here we assume that either this or #1 (above) pertains.

Assumption #2

The penetrance of MS for a proband MZ-twin, whose co-twin is of unknown status, is assumed to be the same as if that genotype had occurred without having an MZ co-twin (i.e., the penetrance of MS for each genotype is independent of MZ-status). This assumption translates to assuming that the impact of experiencing any particular (E_twn) and (E_sib) environments together with an MZ co-twin is the same as the impact of experiencing the same (E_twn) and (E_sib) environments alone. Alternatively, it translates to the testable hypothesis that the mere fact of having an MZ co-twin does not alter the (E_twn) and (E_sib) environments in such a way that MS becomes more or less likely in both twins. Thus, we are here assuming that, for any Time Period:

Assertion C Solutions

Equation 2e has two solutions – the so-called Upper Solution and the Lower Solution, depending upon the value of the (±) sign. The Upper Solution represents the gradual transition from a distribution, when , in which everyone has a penetrance of (x^′) to a bimodal distribution, when , in which half of the (G) subset has a penetrance of (x^′) and the other half has a penetrance of zero. Although, under some environmental conditions: (∀ x_i ∈ X: x_i > 0), as noted previously (see Methods #1A), there may be certain environmental conditions, in which, for some individuals in the (G) subset:

Therefore, the Upper Solution, during any particular Time Period, is constrained such that:

The Lower Solution represents the gradual transition from the bimodal distribution described above to increasingly extreme and asymmetric distributions [3]. The Lower Solution, however, is further constrained by the requirement of Equation 2d that when: then: (x = x^′). Therefore, the Lower Solution is constrained such that:

Moreover, regardless of whether the Upper or Lower Solution pertains, the values that (x₁) and (x₂) can take are further constrained [3]. Thus, using the notation presented above and in Table 2, for the gender partition, during any Time Period: and:

Although the derivation of Equations 4a & 4b does not depend directly upon Assertions A–D (above), nevertheless, one step in the derivation [3] requires the equivalence:

Consequently, Equations 4a & 4b make the same two assumptions.

For this analysis we also assume that either the set (G) by itself or, considered separately, the sets (F, G) and (M, G), conform to the Upper Solution [3]. In this circumstance, on theoretical grounds, from Equations 2e–g & 3a–b, it must be the case that either:

Using a “substitution” analysis, we wrote a computer program, which incorporated the above acceptable ranges (see Methods #2) for the parameters {P(G); P(MS|MZ_MS); p = P(F|G); r; s; P(MS); P(F|MS); and s_a}, into the Summary Equations (below) and determining those combinations (i.e., solutions) that fit within the acceptable ranges for both the observed and non-observed parameters (see Methods #2).

Summary Equations from Definitions & Equations 1a–d ; 2a–e, 3a–b & 4a–b

A. General Considerations

Following standard survival analysis methods [39], we define the cumulative survival {S(u)} and failure {F(u)} functions where: F(u) = 1 − S(u). These functions are defined separately for men {S_m(u) and F_m(u)} and for women {S_w(u) and F_w(u)}. In addition, we define the hazard-rate functions for developing MS at different exposure-levels (u) in susceptible men and women {i.e., h(u) and k(u), respectively}. These hazard-rate functions for women and men may or may not be proportional to each other but, if they are proportional, then: k(u) = R * h(u), where (R > 0) represents the hazard proportionality factor. Furthermore, as defined previously (see Methods #1B), the term P(E|G, E_T) represents the probability of the event that a member of the (G) subset, selected at random, will experience an environmental exposure sufficient to cause MS, given their unique genotype and given the prevailing environmental conditions of the time (E_T). We define the exposure (u) as the odds of this event during the Time Period (E_T) such that:

We define H(a) to be the cumulative hazard function (for men) at an exposure-level (u = a) such that:

Similarly, we define K(a) to be the cumulative hazard function (for women) at an exposure-level (u = a) such that:

For men, following the usual definition of the hazard function [39] that: together with the fact that, by definition: a standard derivation from survival analysis methods [39] demonstrates that, for men, because:

Because we are measuring exposure as the odds that a member of the (G) subset receives an environmental exposure sufficient to cause MS, given the environmental conditions at the time, by definition, when: {P(E|G, E_T) = 0}, no member of (G) can develop MS {i.e., S_m(0) = 1}. In this circumstance: {In[S_m(0)] = In(1) = 0}; and therefore:

Consequently, the cumulative survival function is exponentially related to the integral of the underlying hazard function – i.e., the cumulative hazard function. Even in the unlikely circumstance that the hazard function is discontinuous at some points, the function will still be integrable in all realistic scenarios. In this circumstance, the failure function for susceptible men becomes:

{NB: In this circumstance, we are using the cumulative hazard function, H(a), as a measure of exposure for susceptible men, not as a measure of either survival or failure. By contrast, failure, as defined here, is the event that a person develops MS over the course their life-time. The term: Zm = P(MS, E|M, G, E_T) represents the probability that, during the Time Period (E_T), this failure event occurs for a randomly selected individual from the (M, G) subset of (Z). Notably, also, the exposure of H(a) is being used in preference to the, perhaps, more intuitive measure of exposure (u = a) provided above. Nevertheless, when {P(E|G, E_T) = 0}; both exposure measures are zero – i.e., {a = 0} and {H(a) = 0} − also, as: {P(E|G, E_T) → 1}; both exposure measures become infinite: i.e., {a → ∞} and {H(a) → ∞} − and, finally, both exposure measures increase monotonically with increasing P(E|G, E_T). Therefore, the mapping of the (u = a) measure to the H(a) measure is both one-to-one and onto. Consequently, these two measures of exposure are equivalent and the use of either exposure scale is appropriate. Although the relationship of the H(a) scale to P(E|G, E_T) is less obvious than it is for the (u = a) scale where: P(E|G, E_T) = a/(a + 1), the H(a) scale, nonetheless, has the advantage that the probability of failure is an exponential function of exposure as measured by H(a) and, thus, it is more mathematically tractable.}

B. Non-proportional Hazard

If the hazard functions for MS in men and women are not proportional, it is always possible that the “actual’ exposure level changes for men and women are each at their “minimum” values – i.e., and – such that: (c = d = 1).

In this circumstance, the various observed and non-observed epidemiological parameter values still limit possible solutions. However, although (c) and (d) will still be constants, respectively, for men and women, no information can be learned about them or about their relationship to each other from changes in the (F:M) sex ratio and P(MS) over time. The observed changes in these parameter values over time could all simply be due to the different environmental circumstances of different times and different places. In this case, also, although men and women will still each have environmental thresholds, the parameter (λ) – which relates these thresholds to each other – is meaningless, and there is no hazard proportionality factor (R).

Nevertheless, even with non-proportional hazard, the ratio (Zw/Zm), during any Time Period, must still be proportional to the observed (F:M) sex ratio during that Time Period (see Equation 1b) and, if: c = d ≤ 1, then any observed disparity between (Zw) and (Zm), must be due entirely to a difference between women and men in the likelihood of their experiencing a sufficient environmental exposure (E) during that Time Period (see Equation 7; above).

C. Proportional Hazard

By contrast, if the hazards for women and men are proportional with the proportionality factor (R), the situation is altered. First, because (R > 0), those changes, which take place for the subsets P(F, MS) and P(M, MS) over time, must have the same directionality. Indeed, this circumstance is in accordance with our epidemiological observations where, over the past several decades, the prevalence of MS has been noted to be increasing for both women and men [6,22-30]. Second, including a possible difference in threshold between the genders, the proportionate hazard Model can be represented by those circumstance for which:

In this case, Equations 6a & 6b, which represent the failure probability in susceptible women given the exposure during the 1^st& 2^nd Time Periods, can be re-written as:

Rearranging Equations 5a & 9a for any Time Period yields:

Division of Equation 10a by 10b, and rearrangement, during any Time Period, yields:

Consequently, for those circumstances in which (R = 1), Equation 10c becomes:

For any specific exposure level {H(a) > λ}, the quantities (Zw) and (Zm) are unknown.

However, considering any disease for which a proportionate hazard Model is appropriate, the parameters (c, d, R, & λ) are fixed (but unknown) constants, so that, from Equations 10a & 10b, the values of (Zm) and (Zw) are also fixed at any specific exposure level {H(a)}.

D. Strictly Proportional Hazard: (λ = 0)

If the hazards in men and women are “strictly” proportional to each other, then it must be the case that: (λ = 0). Therefore, when: (|λ| > 0), as it must be when (R ≥ 1), the hazards cannot be “strictly” proportional. Indeed, for those circumstances in which (R ≥ 1) and (λ = 0), the observed (F:M) sex ratio, as discussed above, either decreases or remains constant with increasing exposure (see Method #4 Equations 11a–c), regardless of the parameter values for (c) and (d) – e.g., Figures 1A & 1B. Consequently, the only “strictly” proportional circumstances, which are possible, are those in which men have a greater hazard than women – i.e., (R < 1). Moreover, if men have a greater hazard than women, then, as noted above, the conditions of: (c = d ≤ 1) & (λ = 0) are also excluded.

Thus, the only possible “strictly” proportional circumstances are those, in which both (R < 1) and (c < d ≤ 1) – e.g., Figure 1D.

{NB: In these and subsequent Figures, all response curves exemplifying the conditions in which (c = d ≤ 1), are depicted for the condition (c = d = 1). Nevertheless, for all those conditions where (c = d < 1), the response curves differ from the curves depicted in the Figures only in so far as the y-axis has a different scale. Therefore, the response curves, depicted at: (c = d = 1), are representative of all curves for which (c = d) – see Methods #3C.}

E. Intermediate Proportional Hazard: (λ < 0)

We can also consider another possible Model, which is intermediate between the “strictly” proportional and non-proportional hazard Models discussed above. In this intermediate Model, the hazards are still held to be proportional although the onset of the response curves are offset from each other by an amount (λ ≠ 0). As noted earlier: ∀ (R ≥ 1): λ > 0. Therefore, for those circumstances in which (λ < 0), the hazard in men must be greater than the hazard in women. Otherwise, the (F:M) sex ratio will decrease with increasing exposure, which is contrary to the evidence [6] – e.g., Figure 2A. Moreover, under those conditions, for which (c = d ≤ 1) & (R < 1) & (λ < 0), the (F:M) sex ratio will initially decrease with increasing exposure to a level below {p/(1 − p)} and then, this ratio will steadily increase back to this ratio – e.g., Figure 2B. However, such a circumstance requires that (Zm > Zw) throughout the entire response curve until an (F:M) sex ratio of: {p/(1 − p)} is reached. This is also contrary to the evidence where currently (Zm₂ < Zw₂) and, thus, where: {(F: M) > p/(1 − p)} – see Equation 1b; Methods #2C. Thus, the only circumstances, in which (λ < 0) is possible, are those where: (c < d) – e.g., Figure 2D – but, even then, this is only possible in limited circumstances – e.g., Figures 2C–D.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Response curves for the likelihood of developing MS in genetically susceptible women (black lines) and men (red lines) with an increasing probability of a “sufficient” environmental exposure – see Methods #1B. Like Figure 1, the curves depicted are also proportional although here the environmental threshold is greater for men than for women – i.e., under conditions in which: (λ < 0) – see Text. The blue lines represent the change in the (F:M) sex ratio (plotted at various scales) with increasing exposure. The thin grey vertical lines represent the portion of the response curve that covers the change in the (F:M) sex ratio from 2.2 to 3.2 (i.e., the actual change observed in Canada [6] between Time Periods #1 & #2). The grey lines are omitted under circumstances either where these observed (F:M) sex ratios are not possible or where both an increasing (F:M) sex ratio and (Zw > Zm) are not possible. Response curves A reflects conditions in which (c = d = 1) & (R > 1); Response curves B reflects conditions in which (c = d = 1) & (R < 1); curve C reflects conditions in which (c < d = 1) and (R < 1) and curve D reflects those conditions in which (c < d = 1) and (R < 0.5). To account for the observed increase in the (F:M) sex ratio, curve D (compared to curve C) requires a small enough value of (R) so that the (F:M) sex ratio curve dips below 2.2 and, also, a small enough value of (c) so that the curve rises above 3.2. For all points for curve A (Zw/Zm > d/c). Curves B & C never even approach the (F:M) sex ratio of 2.2. By contrast, for curve D, an appropriate increase in the (F:M) sex ratio can be observed.

F. Intermediate Proportional Hazard: (λ > 0)

By contrast, when (λ > 0), although the hazard is still proportional, there are no absolute constraints on the hazard in men relative to that in women. Thus, the conditions of: (R < 1) & (λ ≥ 0) – e.g., Figure 1D – and: (R ≥ 1) & (λ > 0) – e.g., Figure 3C – can each lead to very similar conclusions. For this discussion, we define (G_ia) to be the susceptibility genotype of the i^th susceptible individual that includes all (and only) those genetic factors, related to MS susceptibility, which are located on autosomal chromosomes. Also, the occurrence of (G_ia) represents the event that an autosomal genotype, randomly selected from all such genotypes within (Z), is a member of the (G_ia) subset. We define the family {G_a} to include all the subsets (G_ia) within the (G) subset. In a similar manner, the occurrence of {G_a} represents the event that an autosomal genotype, randomly selected from all such genotypes within (Z), is a member of the {G_a} family. The “susceptibility” genotype (G_is), defined previously (Methods #1A), includes all (and only) those genetic factors, which are related to MS susceptibility (located on any chromosome) but does not include the entire genotype of the i^th individual. The event (G_is) and the family {G_s} have also been defined previously (see Methods #1A). Naturally, women and men may be members of the same (G_ia) subset, but not be members of the same (G_is) subset, either if there are factors on the X- chromosome related to susceptibility that differ between some susceptible men and women, or if there are factors on the Y-chromosome in some men, which are related to susceptibility.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Response curves for the likelihood of developing MS in genetically susceptible women (black lines) and men (red lines) with an increasing probability of a “sufficient” environmental exposure – see Methods #1B. Like Figure 1, the curves depicted are also proportional (R = R^app), but, for these, the environmental threshold in women is greater than that it is in men – i.e., these are conditions in which: (λ > 0). Also, all these response curves represent actual solutions and reflect conditions in which (c = d = 1) and, as discussed in Methods #4C, are representative of all conditions in which c = d < 1). Moreover, with increasing values from (R^/00 ≥ 1.3), which is the minimum value of (R^app) for any solution – which is depicted in Figure A. The blue lines represent the change in the (F:M) sex ratio (plotted at various scales) with increasing exposure. The thin grey vertical lines represent the portion of the response curve (for the depicted solution), which represents the actual change in the (F:M) sex ratio that occurred between Time Periods #1 & #2). To account for the observed increase in the (F:M) sex ratio, these curves require the Canadian observations [6] to have been made over a very small portion the response curve – i.e., for most of these response curve, the (F:M) sex ratio is decreasing. Also, for each of these response curves, including the maximum difference in the environmental threshold (i.e., λ ≤ 0.13) under conditions of (c = d = 1), which is depicted in Figure B, the ascending portion of the curve (which reflects and increasing F:M sex ratio) is very steep – a circumstance indicating that the portion of the response curve available for fitting the Canadian data [6] is quite narrow.