Cited by 127Epigenetics and DNA MethylationGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging

Epigenetic Research in Neuropsychiatric Disorders: the “Tissue Issue”

Open access
Bakulski, Kelly M., Halladay, Alycia, Hu, Valerie W., Mill, Jonathan, Fallin, M. Daniele·2016·Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports

Abstract

Purpose of review Evidence has linked neuropsychiatric disorders with epigenetic marks as either a biomarker of disease, biomarker of exposure, or mechanism of disease processes. Neuropsychiatric epidemiologic studies using either target brain tissue or surrogate blood tissue each have methodological challenges and distinct advantages.Recent findings Brain tissue studies are challenged by small sample sizes of cases and controls, incomplete phenotyping, post-mortem timing, and cellular heterogeneity, but the use of a primary disease relevant tissue is critical. Blood-based studies have access to much larger sample sizes and more replication opportunities, as well as the potential for longitudinal measurements, both prior to onset and during the course of treatments. Yet, blood studies also are challenged by cell-type heterogeneity, and many question the validity of using peripheral tissues as a brain biomarker. Emerging evidence suggests that these limitations to blood-based epigenetic studies are surmountable, but confirmation in target tissue remains important.Summary Epigenetic mechanisms have the potential to help elucidate biology connecting experiential risk factors with neuropsychiatric disease manifestation. Cross-tissue studies as well as advanced epidemiologic methods should be employed to more effectively conduct neuropsychiatric epigenetic research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40473-016-0083-4

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Human studies to assess epigenetic modifications have been limited to measures made in blood cells or in post-mortem brain.

    “Human studies to assess epigenetic modifications have been lim ited to measures made in blood cells or in post- mortem brain 115,116 .”

    From Substance use disorders: a comprehensive update of classification, epidemiology, neurobiology, clinical aspects, treatment and prevention (2023) · cites this paper as [116]

    The Introduction’s ‘Challenges of Brain-Based Research’ section discusses blood and post-mortem brain studies, but also identifies buccal and saliva samples as sources for epigenetic discovery in neuropsychiatric research. The claim that human measurements have been limited to blood cells or post-mortem brain therefore excludes sample types the paper explicitly discusses. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Elucidating molecular changes in the human brain is made difficult by the timing of sample acquisition, cell type distribution between samples, cause of death, brain agonal state, sample handling, storage temperatures, and sample size.

    “Elucidating molecular changes in the human brain is made difficult by the timing of sample acquisition, cell type distribution between samples, cause of death, and brain agonal state, as well as sample handling, storage temperatures, and sample size (Bakulski et al., 2016).”

    From The Epigenetics of Anxiety Pathophysiology: A DNA Methylation and Histone Modification Focused Review (2023) · cites this paper as Bakulski et al., 2016

    The Introduction’s “Challenges of Brain-Based Research” section identifies timing of acquisition, cell-type variation, small sample sizes, cause of death, and pre-mortem agonal state as limitations. It also calls for careful sampling and storage, but does not specifically identify storage temperatures as a difficulty. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Epigenetic studies so far have mostly relied on peripheral tissues, which precludes definite conclusions from being drawn regarding CNS processes.

    “epigenetic studies so far have mostly (with the exception of investigations in post-mortem samples) relied on peripheral tissues, which precludes definite conclusions from being drawn regarding CNS processes.”

    From The applied implications of epigenetics in anxiety, affective and stress-related disorders - A review and synthesis on psychosocial stress, psychotherapy and prevention (2020) · cites this paper as Bakulski, Halladay, Hu, Mill, & Fallin, 2016

    The Introduction’s ‘Challenges of Blood-Based Neuropsychiatric Epigenetic Research’ section says blood findings require caution when inferring brain mechanisms, and the Abstract’s ‘Recent findings’ section says confirmation in brain tissue remains important. The paper does not establish that most studies relied on peripheral tissues; its ‘Utility of Brain Tissue’ section also says many studies used brain material. It treats peripheral-to-brain inference as limited, not categorically impossible. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bakulski, K. M., Halladay, A., Hu, V. W., Mill, J., & Fallin, M. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Fallin, M. Daniele
Venue
Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports
Published
2016-08-02
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
264-274
ISSN
2196-2979 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2505166506
Cited by
127
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12
FWCI
6.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES017646, ES023061)
  • Medical Research Council (MRC; MR/K013807/1)
  • National Institutes of Health (AG036039)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Keywords
epigenetics, neuropsychiatric disorders, blood-based biomarkers, brain tissue, surrogate tissue, cellular heterogeneity, postmortem brain, risk factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review