4.6 Article

Monozygotic twins exhibit numerous epigenetic differences: Clues to twin discordance?

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 169-178

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a006988

关键词

monozygotic twins; discordance; schizophrenia; complex disease; epigenetics; DNA methylation; dopamine D2 receptor

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH041176] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH-41176] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of this pilot study was to explore the putative molecular mechanisms underlying the phenotypic discordance of monozygotic (MZ) twins. Thus, patterns of epigenetic DNA modification were investigated in the 5'-regulatory region of the dopamine D2 receptor gene (DRD2) in two pairs of monozygotic twins, one concordant and one discordant for schizophrenia. The bisulfite DNA modification-based approach was used to fine-map methylated cytosines in DRD2 in genomic DNA extracted from lymphocytes. Numerous DNA methylation differences were identified in the analyzed region both within and between the pairs of MZ twins. Epigenetic distances between MZ twins were calculated and used for the comparison of twin DRD2 methylation profiles. It was detected that the affected twin from the pair discordant for schizophrenia was epigenetically closer to the affected concordant twins than to his unaffected MZ co-twin. Although the epigenetic analysis was conducted for only several hundred base pairs of DRD2, the fact that numerous studies identified nonuniform methylation patterns across the clones of bisulfite-modified DNA from the same individual, as well as nonuniform patterns across different individuals, argues for the universality of intra- and interindividual epigenetic variation. Epigenetic studies should provide insight into the molecular causes of differential susceptibility to a disease in genetically identical organisms that may generalize to singletons.

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

4.6
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