MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416572834 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315549

Birth weight discordance, gene expression, and DNA methylation: A scoping review of epigenetic twin studies

2025· article· en· W4416572834 on OpenAlexafffund
Dany Laure Wadji, Zsófia Nemoda, Chantal Martin-Söelch, Linda Booij, Chantal Wicky

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsEpigeneticsTwin studyDNA methylationGeneRegulation of gene expressionTranscription (linguistics)DNATranscriptomeMonozygotic twin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Birth weight is considered as an important indicator of environmental conditions during prenatal development. Molecular mechanisms, including epigenetic modifications, play central roles in the body's adaptation to ever-changing environmental conditions. Twin study designs offer a powerful approach for distinguishing environmental from genetic effects. Specifically, within-pair comparisons of monozygotic twins can be used to differentiate unique individual environmental factors from shared environmental and genetic contributions. Notably, numerous studies in monozygotic twins have shown associations between prenatal environment and birth weight discordance (BWD), and suggested a potential involvement of gene expression and epigenetic factors mediating the association. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review of the literature on definitions of BWD and on epigenetic modifications and gene expression changes associated with BWD in twins. METHOD: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE(R) databases and included 34 twin studies focusing on birth weight and epigenetic or gene expression outcomes. RESULTS: There is a lack of consensus on BWD values when comparing groups of twins for their risks of perinatal mortality and morbidity, which vary between 15-30% depending on the type of placentation and gestational age. The gene expression twin studies measured mostly metabolism-related candidate genes in placental tissues. Only small-scale twin studies measured BWD associated with gene expression patterns on genome-wide level using neonatal cells. Most DNA methylation twin studies conducted epigenome-level analyses, and studies differ substantially in terms of tissue type and age of the children. Differences in DNA methylation patterns measured in blood or saliva samples of the twins later in life were mostly in genes related to signal transduction, cell differentiation and proliferation processes. CONCLUSION: Transcriptional changes of placental glucose transporters and hypoxia-induced proteins possibly reflect compensatory processes in twin pregnancies. Gene ontology analysis of the differentially methylated genes associated with BWD pointed to transcription regulation and tissue development.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0190.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies→French-language works237,207→