Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:15:15.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Death-Discordant Twins A New Method to Evaluate Genetic Factors in Chronic Diseases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Ulf de Faire  and
Torbjorn Lundman
Ulf de Faire*
Affiliation:
The Serafimerlasarettet Medical Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden
Torbjorn Lundman
Affiliation:
The Serafimerlasarettet Medical Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden
*
Serafimerlasarettet, Fack 12700, 11283 Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

One of the most important lines of research on unselected large scale twin registries are mortality follow-ups. Death-specific concordance rates have been calculated using different measures of concordance. These estimates are of great importance but they only reflect an “all or-none” classification of the genetic effect. It is suggested that mortality studies could be extended to, and include studies on, death-discordant twins. Such studies combine the advantages from mortality follow-ups on total twin populations with the detailed clinical investigation on subsamples. By examining the surviving cotwins with respect to various traits and supposed risk factors, an opportunity has been provided to study the genetic determination on the development of disease. This approach has been used in a study of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and its risk factors in a representative subsample from the Swedish Twin Registry.

Type
3. Scope and Methodology of Twin Studies
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 114 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1976

References

REFERENCES

Allen, G., Harvald, B., Shields, J. 1967. Measure of twin concordance. Acta Genet. (Basel), 17: 475.Google ScholarPubMed
Dahlberg, G. 1926. Twin Births and Twins from a Hereditary Point of View. Stockholm.Google Scholar
de Faire, U. 1974. Ischemic heart disease in death discordant twins. A study on 205 male and female pairs with special reference to hereditary factors. Proc. 1st Int. Congr. Twin Studies, Rome. Acta Genet. Med. Gemellol. (Roma), 25: 271–275.Google Scholar
Edwards, J.H. 1969. Familial predisposition in man. Br. Med. Bull., 25: 58.Google Scholar
Epstein, F.H. 1964. Hereditary aspects of coronary hearth disease. Am. Heart J., 67: 445.Google Scholar
Falconer, D.S. 1965. The inheritance of liability to certain diseases, estimated from incidence among relatives. Ann. Hum. Genet. 29: 51.Google Scholar
Gedda, L. 1961. Twins in History and Science. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Harvald, B., Hauge, M. 1965. Hereditary Factors Elucidated by Twin Studies. Genetics and the Epidemiology of Chronic Disease. Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.Google Scholar
Hrubec, Z., Lorich, U., de Faire, U., Lundman, T. 1974. Twin concordances in Sweden for mortality and their variation with zygosity. Presented at the 1st Int. Congr. Twin Studies, Rome.Google Scholar
Liljefors, I. 1970. Coronary heart disease in male twins. Hereditary and environmental factors in concordant and discordant pairs. Acta Med. Scand. [Suppl.], 511.Google Scholar
Lundman, T. 1966. Smoking in relation to coronary heart disease and lung function in twins. A co-twin control study. Acta Med. Scand. [Suppl.], 455.Google Scholar
Slack, J. 1974. Genetic differences in liability to atherosclerotic heart disease. J.R. Coll. Physicians London, 8: 115.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1970. Heritability of liability and concordance in monozygous twins. Ann. Hum. Genet., 34: 85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, C. 1972. Correlation in liability among relatives and concordance in twins. Hum. Hered., 22: 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuer, O. von 1958. Die Zwillingsforschung in Dienste der Inneren Medizin. Verh. Dtsch. Ges. Inn. Med., 64: 262.Google Scholar