4.7 Article

Sex difference in leukocyte telomere length is ablated in opposite-sex co-twins

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 6, 页码 1799-1805

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyu146

关键词

Telomeres; twins; sex; women; men

资金

  1. NIH [AG030678, HD071180]
  2. Danish Council for Independent Research - Medical Sciences
  3. INTERREG 4 A - programme Southern Denmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N. - European Regional Development Fund
  4. A.P. Moller Foundation for the Advancement of Medical Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In eutherian mammals and in humans, the female fetus may be masculinized while sharing the intra-uterine environment with a male fetus. Telomere length (TL), as expressed in leukocytes, is heritable and is longer in women than in men. The main determinant of leukocyte TL (LTL) is LTL at birth. However, LTL is modified by age-dependent attrition. Methods: We studied LTL dynamics (LTL and its attrition) in adult same-sex (monozygotic, n = 268; dizygotic, n = 308) twins and opposite-sex (n = 144) twins. LTL was measured by Southern blots of the terminal restriction fragments. Results: We observed that in same-sex (both monozygotic and dizygotic) twins, as reported in singletons, LTL was longer in females than in males [estimate +/- standard error (SE): 163 +/- 63 bp, P< 0.01]. However, in opposite-sex twins, female LTL was indistinguishable from that of males (-31 +/- 52 bp, P = 0.6), whereas male LTL was not affected. Findings were similar when the comparison was restricted to opposite-sex and same-sex dizygotic twins (females relative to males: same-sex: 188 +/- 90 bp, P< 0.05; other-sex: 32 +/- 64 bp, P = 0.6). Conclusions: These findings are compatible with masculinization of the female fetus in opposite-sex twins. They suggest that the sex difference in LTL, seen in the general population, is largely determined in utero, perhaps by the intrauterine hormonal environment. Further studies in newborn twins are warranted to test this thesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据