Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:18:08.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twin and family studies are actually more important than ever

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2012

S. Alexandra Burt
S. Alexandra Burt*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. burts@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Charney argues that the presence of inherited epigenetic effects makes twin, family, and adoption studies obsolete. This argument relies on both a faulty characterization of these studies and indirect comparisons of DNA and “neogenetic” factors. I argue that twin and family studies will in fact serve a necessary and vital role in the study of epigenetic and neogenetic processes.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2012 , pp. 361
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Burt, S. A., Krueger, R. F., McGue, M. & Iacono, W. G. (2003) Parent–child conflict and the comorbidity among childhood externalizing disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry 60:505–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burt, S. A., McGue, M., Krueger, R. F. & Iacono, W. G. (2007) Environmental contributions to adolescent delinquency: A fresh look at the shared environment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 35:787–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, N., Van Gestel, S., Derom, C., Thiery, E., Vernon, P., Derom, R. & Vlietinck, R. (2001) Heritability estimates of intelligence in twins: Effect of chorion type. Behavior Genetics 31:209–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moilanen, I., Linna, S.-L., Ebeling, H., Kumpulainen, K., Tamminen, T., Piha, J. & Almqvist, F. (1999) Are twins' behavioural/emotional problems different from singletons'? European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 8(Suppl. 4):62–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purcell, S. (2002) Variance components model for gene-environment interaction in twin analysis. Twin Research 5:554–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reise, M. L. (1999) Effects of chorion type on neonatal temperament differences in monozygotic twin pairs. Behavior Genetics 29:87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbers, S. C. C., Bartels, M., van Oort, F. V. A., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., van der Ende, J., Verhulst, F. C., Boomsma, D. I. & Huizink, A. C. (2010) A twin-singleton comparison of developmental trajectories of externalizing and internalizing problems in 6- to 12-year-old children. Twin Research and Human Genetics 13:79–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Oord, E. J. C. G., Koot, H. M., Boomsma, D. I., Verhulst, F. C. & Orlebeke, J. F. (1995) A twin-singleton comparison of problem behaviour in 2–3-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 36:449–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Veen, R., Abrous, D. N., Ronald de Kloet, N., Piazza, P. V. & Koehl, M. (2008) Impact of intra- and interstrain cross-fostering on mouse maternal care. Genes, Brain and Behavior 7(2):184–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed