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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sensitive Periods for the Effect of Childhood Adversity on DNA Methylation: Results From a Prospective, Longitudinal Study

Open access

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.

Overview

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

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 92 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Widom, 2007, Child abuse and neglect: Potential derailment from normal developmental pathways, NYS Psychologist, 19, 2

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 315

Metadata

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
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