Identical Twins Exhibit Differences in Gene Expression

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

At first glance identical twins seem, well, identical. In fact many of these sibling pairs show minor physical variations and differences in characteristics such as susceptibility to disease. Just what causes these dissimilarities is unclear. But a new report further suggests that epigenetic factors--that is, differences in how the genome is expressed--could be responsible.

Mario F. Fraga of the Spanish National Cancer Center and his colleagues studied 160 monozygous twins ranging from three to 74 years of age. They analyzed two epigenetic phenomena along the entire genome and compared the results for each set of twins. The processes, DNA methylation and histone acetylation, both govern gene expression and can amplify or dampen the effects of particular genes. The team determined that early in life, twins were indistinguishable in the manner in which their genes were expressed. Among older sets of twins, however, significant differences in the gene-expression portraits were apparent for 35 percent of the study group. (The image above shows methylation patterns for three-year-old twins (left) and 50-year-old twins (right), with the differences highlighted in red.) In addition, twins who had spent the most time apart and had more divergent medical histories exhibited the greatest epigenetic differences.

Environmental factors, including smoking habits, physical activity levels and diet, can influence epigenetic patterns and may help explain how the same genotype can be translated in different ways, the scientists say. They suggest that future studies should investigate specific mechanisms that cause this so-called epigenetic drift in identical twins. A report describing the work is published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American