4.7 Review

Childhood maltreatment and DNA methylation: A systematic review

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
Volume 112, Issue -, Pages 392-409

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.02.019

Keywords

Epigenetic; DNA methylation; Child maltreatment; Abuse; Neglect

Funding

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programmeunder the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [707404, 848158]
  2. International Postdoctoral Exchange Fellowship from the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
  3. Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowship [091188/Z/10/Z]
  4. Wellcome Trust [091188/Z/10/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  5. MRC [MC_PC_19009] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

DNA methylation (DNAm) - an epigenetic process that regulates gene expression - may represent a mechanism for the biological embedding of early traumatic experiences, including childhood maltreatment. Here, we conducted the first systematic review of human studies linking childhood maltreatment to DNAm. In total, 72 studies were included in the review (2008-2018). The majority of extant studies (i) were based on retrospective data in adults, (ii) employed a candidate gene approach (iii) focused on global maltreatment, (iv) were based on easily accessible peripheral tissues, typically blood; and (v) were cross-sectional. Two-thirds of studies (n = 48) also examined maltreatment-related outcomes, such as stress reactivity and psychiatric symptoms. While findings generally support an association between childhood maltreatment and altered patterns of DNAm, factors such as the lack of longitudinal data, low comparability across studies as well as potential genetic and 'pre-exposure' environmental confounding currently limit the conclusions that can be drawn. Key challenges are discussed and concrete recommendations for future research are provided to move the field forward.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available