Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33371772›Full record

ArticleEpigenetics2021

DNA methylation signatures of adolescent victimization: analysis of a longitudinal monozygotic twin sample.

Radhika Kandaswamy, Eilis Hannon, Louise Arseneault, Georgina Mansell, Karen Sugden, Benjamin Williams, Joe Burrage, James R Staley, Ehsan Pishva, Aisha Dahir and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readTwin Study
In one paragraph

Article in Epigenetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Loss of function inGenetics in medicine open · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Histochemistry, Cytochemistry and Epigenetics.Acta histochemica et cytochemica · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Radhika KandaswamyKing's College London, Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1028-4313
Eilis HannonUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Louise ArseneaultKing's College London, Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.
Georgina MansellUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Karen SugdenDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4076-5927
Benjamin WilliamsDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Joe BurrageUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
James R StaleyMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ehsan PishvaUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8964-0682
Aisha DahirUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Susanna RobertsKing's College London, Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2616-2644
Andrea DaneseKing's College London, Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.
Jonathan MillUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1115-3224
Helen L FisherKing's College London, Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4174-2126
Chloe C Y WongKing's College London, Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.
King's College London · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBDuke University · USUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Neuropsychological and genomic signatures of violence exposure in childhoodR01HD077482 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CASPI, AVSHALOM · 2013 to 2018
$2.8M
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research Council G1002190Medical Research Council MR/M025020/1NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD077482
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accumulating evidence suggests that individuals exposed to victimization at key developmental stages may have different epigenetic fingerprints compared to those exposed to no/minimal stressful events, however results are inconclusive. This study aimed to strengthen causal inference regarding the impact of adolescent victimization on the epigenome by controlling for genetic variation, age, gender, and shared environmental exposures. We conducted longitudinal epigenome-wide association analyses (EWAS) on DNA methylation (DNAm) profiles of 118 monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs from the Environmental Risk study with and without severe adolescent victimization generated using buccal DNA collected at ages 5, 10 and 18, and the Illumina EPIC array. Additionally, we performed cross-sectional EWAS on age-18 blood and buccal DNA from the same individuals to elucidate tissue-specific signatures of severe adolescent victimization. Our analyses identified 20 suggestive differentially methylated positions (DMPs) (

Indexed as

Crime VictimsTwins, MonozygoticAdolescentChildCross-Sectional StudiesDNA MethylationEpigenesis, GeneticEpigenomicsGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansAdolescenceadversityDNA methylationepigeneticslongitudinaltwinsvictimization

Identifiers

PMID33371772
PMCPMC8813077
OpenAlexW3096350653

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.