Identical Twins Not Identical After All
Hugh Pickens writes "Contrary to previous beliefs, identical twins are not genetically identical. Researchers studied 19 pairs of monozygotic, or identical, twins and found differences in copy number variation in DNA which occurs when a set of coding letters in DNA are missing, or when extra copies of segments of DNA are produced. In most cases, variation in the number of copies likely has no impact on health or development but in others, it may be one factor in the likelihood of developing a disease (pdf). "Those differences may point the way to better understanding of genetic diseases when we study so-called discordant monozygotic twins....a pair of twins where one twin has a disorder and the other does not," says Carl Bruder, Ph.D. "If twin A develops Parkinson's and twin B does not, the region of their genome where they show differences is a target for further investigation to discover the basic genetic underpinnings of the disease.""
...decades of experiments that assumed twins have identical DNA. One twin may not be such a good control after all...
Right, and it seems like their making a false dichotomy between environmental factors and DNA replication "errors," one can lead to the other (well replication errors can lead to susceptibility). Think about your skin cells, people who spend alot of time outside end up with their skin adapted. Its not just upregulation of whatever leads to more pigment, there is actually competition going on amongst the cell lines, those that survive better start to spread. Eventually even the whitest person you know will have permanently darker skin (if it doesn't kill them first that is). Same with every organ I imagine.
well you still have to research the obvious, because sometimes intuition is wrong. Ever hear the thing about how many times you would have to fold a normal piece of paper in half in order for it to reach the moon? Really guess. The answer is 42. And I'm not just saying that because its the answer to everything.
I wonder, maybe the egg always splits when minor genetic errors happen as a method to protect the embryo. The vast majority of the time, the part that splits dies and is reabsorbed. On odd occasions, the genetic mutation is viable and becomes a twin.
That would imply that the second twin always has some sort of mutation from the first.
I've wondered about this. I'm going to get married to a twin in a couple months and my fiance is has many medical allergies - penicillin and similar drugs (like her mother). Her identical twin sister on the other hand has allergies such as pollen or other outdoor allergies.
I was never sure how much genes would play a role into this.
:wq
As a proud mum of identical twin boys I had noticed that mine seem distant as opposed to those who feel empathy for each other.
They are part of a twin study, which basically involved some of the placenta, blood tests and for a few months DNA swabs from inside the cheek. The study never got back to us with the results yet as I believe it is still ongoing. But yes it was confirmed they are definitely identical.
As babies I used to "colour code" them so I knew who was who, now they are teenagers, totally different but I put it down to personality and obviously different tastes in dress. Silly me....
I will be following this with interest though! Esp. as one of my sons has autism and they are saying that could be a genetic thing, well I was told by a specialist if one had autism the other would have too? However my GP said that is crap. I have no idea but they are like chalk and cheese except for their voice.
In the name of sticking up for someone with autism, f**k you! Prejudiced bastard.... that is unlawful and linuc for dumm
Well then.
That explains why Playboy's "Dalmer Triplets" have differing breast sizes. I thought I was just seeing things, but apparently there really IS a difference.
(ducking and running)
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
I can think of a scenario off the top of my head that'd be one plausible explanation for this sort of thing:
...
1. Egg gets fertilized
2. Egg splits into two fertilized eggs
3. Both eggs start dividing
4. After a few cell divisions, an extremely well-aimed cosmic ray strikes egg #2, shearing off a few base pairs from one of its copies of chromosome 3. Egg #1 is unaffected.
5. Egg #2 grows up to be the evil twin.
Epigenetics is an important factor that should not be neglegted!
Depending on the life-style of each twin (and other factors) twins could be identical genetically but very different epigenetically. That means that even though they have the same set of genes they can be completely differently regulated, thus resulting in different susceptibility to diseases.
(For those interested: One important epigenetic mark is the methylation of DNA at Cytosines thus resulting in the shut-off of genes.)
Anyone who knows identical twins very well at all could have told you this.
I married one. From the day I met them, I have had no trouble telling them apart, even the one time her sister tried to fool me as a practical joke.
I suppose it's good to know the details; knowledge is generally good. But the announcement that identical twins aren't is right up there with "Politician caught lying!" My immediate thought is "Wow! Really! Who knew?"