4.7 Article

Genome and epigenome analysis of monozygotic twins discordant for congenital heart disease

Journal

BMC GENOMICS
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12864-018-4814-7

Keywords

CHD; MZ twins; ZIC3; NR2F2; DNA methylation; RRBS; WGS

Funding

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 55th General Financial Grant [2014 M550007]
  2. Peking University-Tshinghua University Center for Life Sciences
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [31471205, 31671426, 91219101]
  4. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2010CB529500, 2013CB530700]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the leading non-infectious cause of death in infants. Monozygotic (MZ) twins share nearly all of their genetic variants before and after birth. Nevertheless, MZ twins are sometimes discordant for common complex diseases. The goal of this study is to identify genomic and epigenomic differences between a pair of twins discordant for a form of congenital heart disease, double outlet right ventricle (DORV). Results: A monoamniotic monozygotic (MZ) twin pair discordant for DORV were subjected to genome-wide sequencing and methylation analysis. We identified few genomic differences but 1566 differentially methylated regions (DMRs) between the MZ twins. Twenty percent (312/1566) of the DMRs are located within 2 kb upstream of transcription start sites (TSS), containing 121 binding sites of transcription factors. Particularly, ZIC3 and NR2F2 are found to have hypermethylated promoters in both the diseased twin and additional patients suffering from DORV. Conclusions: The results showed a high correlation between hypermethylated promoters at ZIC3 and NR2F2 and down regulated gene expression levels of these two genes in patients with DORV compared to normal controls, providing new insight into the potential mechanism of this rare form of CHD.

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