↓ Skip to main content

Genetic, environmental and stochastic factors in monozygotic twin discordance with a focus on epigenetic differences

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Genetic, environmental and stochastic factors in monozygotic twin discordance with a focus on epigenetic differences
Published in
BMC Medicine, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-10-93
Pubmed ID
Authors

Witold Czyz, Julia M Morahan, George C Ebers, Sreeram V Ramagopalan

Abstract

Genetic-epidemiological studies on monozygotic (MZ) twins have been used for decades to tease out the relative contributions of genes and the environment to a trait. Phenotypic discordance in MZ twins has traditionally been ascribed to non-shared environmental factors acting after birth, however recent data indicate that this explanation is far too simple. In this paper, we review other reasons for discordance, including differences in the in utero environment, genetic mosaicism, and stochastic factors, focusing particularly on epigenetic discordance. Epigenetic differences are gaining increasing recognition. Although it is clear that in specific cases epigenetic alterations provide a causal factor in disease etiology, the overall significance of epigenetics in twin discordance remains unclear. It is also challenging to determine the causality and relative contributions of environmental, genetic, and stochastic factors to epigenetic variability. Epigenomic profiling studies have recently shed more light on the dynamics of temporal methylation change and methylome heritability, yet have not given a definite answer regarding their relevance to disease, because of limitations in establishing causality. Here, we explore the subject of epigenetics as another component in human phenotypic variability and its links to disease focusing particularly on evidence from MZ twin studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Unknown 130 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Master 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 26 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 13%
Psychology 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 34 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2012.
All research outputs
#12,546,060
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,643
of 3,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,271
of 169,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#39
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 169,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.