Cited by 315Epigenetics and DNA MethylationChild Abuse and TraumaMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

Sensitive periods for the effect of childhood adversity on DNA methylation: results from a prospective, longitudinal study

Open access
Dunn, Erin C., Soare, Thomas W., Zhu, Yiwen, Simpkin, Andrew J., Suderman, Matthew J., Klengel, Torsten, Smith, Andrew D.A.C., Ressler, Kerry J. +1 more·2019·Biological Psychiatry

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background Exposure to early-life adversity is known to predict DNA methylation (DNAm) patterns that may be related to psychiatric risk. However, few studies have investigated whether adversity has time-dependent effects based on the age at exposure.Methods Using a two-stage structured life course modeling approach, we tested the hypothesis that there are sensitive periods when adversity induces greater DNAm changes. We tested this hypothesis in relation to two alternatives: an accumulation hypothesis, in which the effect of adversity increases with the number of occasions exposed, regardless of timing; and a recency model, in which the effect of adversity is stronger for more proximal events. Data came from the Accessible Resource for Integrated Epigenomic Studies, a subsample of mother-child pairs from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (n = 691-774).Results After covariate adjustment and multiple testing correction, we identified 38 CpG sites that were differentially methylated at 7 years of age following exposure to adversity. Most loci (n = 35) were predicted by the timing of adversity, namely exposures before 3 years of age. Neither the accumulation nor recency of the adversity explained considerable variability in DNAm. A standard epigenome-wide association study of lifetime exposure (vs. no exposure) failed to detect these associations.Conclusions The developmental timing of adversity explains more variability in DNAm than the accumulation or recency of exposure. Very early childhood appears to be a sensitive period when exposure to adversity predicts differential DNAm patterns. Classification of individuals as exposed versus unexposed to early-life adversity may dilute observed effects.

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 · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.12.023

Cites

92 of 92 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?

  • Early life is a special period characterized by a high level of plasticity and fast development.

    “Early life is a special period characterized by a high level of plasticity and fast development (76).”

    From Epigenetic Modifications in Stress Response Genes Associated With Childhood Trauma (2019) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes the first three years of life as an especially vulnerable stage when brain architecture is initially sculpted, and says epigenetic programming can be particularly responsive to experience shortly after birth. This supports early life as a sensitive developmental period, but the paper does not establish the broader characterization of early life as a period of high plasticity and fast development. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The developmental timing of childhood adversity, with sensitive periods before three years of age, explains more variability in DNA methylation than the accumulation or recency of exposure.

    “recent clinical studies demonstrate that the developmental timing of childhood adversity, with sensitive periods before three years of age, explains more variability in DNA methylation than the accumulation or recency of exposure.39”
  • Epigenetics can regulate neuronal plasticity and memory consolidation.

    “Epigenetics can regulate neuronal plasticity and memory consolidation.38–41”

    From Epigenetic regulation in major depression and other stress-related disorders: molecular mechanisms, clinical relevance and therapeutic potential (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says DNA methylation can alter gene expression and refers to persistent effects of adversity as “biological memories.” The Discussion (page unavailable) speculates that early adversity may become wired into neural circuitry. Neither passage addresses epigenetic regulation of neuronal plasticity or memory consolidation; searches for those terms and for synaptic plasticity and learning found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Time since adversity can moderate the magnitude of epigenetic change, while repeated or varied sources of adversity may accumulate to produce larger epigenetic responses.

    “Time since adversity can moderate the magnitude of epigenetic change,53 while repeated or varied sources of adversity may accumulate to produce larger epigenetic responses.54,55”

    From The role of epigenetics in psychological resilience (2021) · cites this paper as [53]

  • The timing of adversity explains more variability in DNA methylation than the accumulation or recency of exposure.

    “It has been suggested that the timing of adversity explains more variability in DNA methylation than the accumulation or recency of exposure [216].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [57]Non AL, Hollister BM, Humphreys KL, Childebayeva A, Esteves K, Zeanah CH, (2016): DNA methylation at stress‐related genes is associated with exposure to early life institutionalization. American journal of physical anthropology 161: 84– 93. 27218411 PMC5278953
  2. [80]Esposito EA, Jones MJ, Doom JR, MacIsaac JL, Gunnar MR, Kobor MS (2016): Differential DNA methylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells in adolescents exposed to significant early but not later childhood adversity. Dev Psychopathol 28: 1385– 1399. 26847422 PMC5903568
  3. [81]Klengel T, Mehta D, Anacker C, Rex-Haffner M, Pruessner JC, Pariante CM, (2013): Allele-specific FKBP5 DNA demethylation mediates gene-childhood trauma interactions. Nature Neuroscience 16: 33– 41. 23201972 PMC4136922

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dunn, E. C., Soare, T. W., Zhu, Y., Simpkin, A. J., Suderman, M. J., Klengel, T., Smith, A. D. A. C., Ressler, K. J., & Relton, C. L.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of the West of England (GB)
Corresponding author
Dunn, Erin C.
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
85
Issue
10
Pages
838-849
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2950440677
Cited by
315
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 3
FWCI
14.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Explore Bristol Research (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Center for Research Resources
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/I025263/1, BBI025751/1, MC_UU_12013/2, MC_UU_12013/8)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • Economic and Social Research Council
  • Harvard University
  • University of Bristol
  • Harvard Catalyst
  • Wellcome Trust (102215/2/13/2)
  • National Institutes of Health (K01MH102403, R01MH113930, UL1 TR001102)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
childhood adversity, DNA methylation, sensitive period, early childhood, differentially methylated CpG sites, mother-child pairs, epigenome-wide association study, psychiatric risk
MeSH terms
Adverse Childhood Experiences, Epigenome, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Prospective Studies, Time Factors, CpG Islands, DNA Methylation, Epigenesis, Genetic

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