Back

Epigenetic timing effects on child developmental outcomes: A longitudinal meta-regression of findings from the Pregnancy And Childhood Epigenetics Consortium

Neumann, A.; Sammallahti, S.; Cosin-Tomas, M.; Reese, S. E.; Suderman, M.; Alemany, S.; Almqvist, C.; Andrusaityte, S.; Arshad, S. H.; Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J.; Beilin, L.; Breton, C.; Bustamante, M.; Czamara, D.; Dabelea, D.; Eng, C.; Eskenazi, B.; Fuemmeler, B. F.; Gilliland, F. D.; Grazuleviciene, R.; Haberg, S. E.; Herberth, G.; Holland, N.; Hough, A.; Hu, D.; Huen, K.; Hüls, A.; Jin, J.; Julvez, J.; Koletzko, B. V.; Koppelman, G. H.; Kull, I.; Lu, X.; Maitre, L.; Mason, D.; Melen, E.; Merid, S. K.; Molloy, P. L.; Mori, T. A.; Mulder, R. H.; Page, C. M.; Richmond, R. C.; Roder, S.; Ros

2024-02-29 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2024.02.29.24303506 medRxiv
Show abstract

DNA methylation (DNAm) is a developmentally dynamic epigenetic process, yet we still know little about how epigenetic effects on health outcomes vary over time; whether DNAm alterations during certain periods of development are more informative than others; and whether epigenetic timing effects differ by outcome. To address these questions, we applied longitudinal meta-regression to published meta-analyses from the PACE consortium that examine DNAm at multiple time points (prospectively at birth and cross-sectionally in childhood) in relation to the same child outcome (ADHD, general psychopathology, sleep, BMI, asthma). Our findings reveal three new insights: (i) across outcomes, effects sizes are larger when DNAm is measured in childhood compared to at birth; (ii) higher effect sizes do not necessarily translate into more significant findings, as associations also become noisier in childhood for most outcomes (i.e. showing larger standard errors); and (iii) DNAm signals are highly time-specific while showing pleiotropy across health outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.