Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-18T16:47:01.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twinning in Susceptible Mothers—An Exploratory Study of International Data by Payami's Models Suggests “Reproductive Maturity” as a Risk Factor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

P. Philippe
P. Philippe*
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Canada

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.

An attempt has been made to apply Payami's models to maternal age-specific twin birth prevalences in several countries. The models disclose the heterogeneity of a cohort and spell out the risks to susceptible members (who will actually get the disease) according to age (or time). Payami's method specifies that the typical cohort of susceptibles is ascribed to two exposures: a potent and generalised exposure and a very low or no risk secondary exposure. The models have been adjusted to international data from current as well as old populations, of Occidental and Japanese origin. Results show that cohorts of twin-prone mothers aged 25 to 45 are homogeneous. A single dominant etiology is suggested which applies to both MZ and DZ twins. Heterogeneity, from 10% to 25%, is present in all countries whenever the 20-24 age group is involved. A separate study of illegitimate twin births from Denmark reduces the heterogeneity and shows that MZ illegitimate twin births are due to a secondary exposure responsible for a distinct twinning etiology. The age-specific risks of a MZ illegitimate twin birth are much higher than those of any comparison group, and are constant until age 35 years. This suggests a single-hit exposure akin to a neuroendocrine stimulus which short-cuts the usual age-dependent etiologic pathway. MZ and DZ twins both experience the same maternal age specific risks, an observation which underscores the common etiology of both types of twins. Risks increase with age from age 20 to 45 years. The pattern according to age varies among countries and time periods. Occidental populations have a pattern varying from an exponential to a more linear increase in old and recent populations, respectively. Only present-day Japan displays a logarithmic-like growth curve. The concept of “reproductive maturity” is introduced, and related to the secular trend of the DZ twin birth risk and to its variation across countries. Two new conclusions are drawn: a) The higher the rate of reproductive maturity, the less the DZ twin birth risk and, b) Reproductive maturity determines the maternal age-specific gonadotropin levels.

Keywords

TwinningCohortEtiologic heterogeneityIllegitimacyReproductive maturityMathematical models
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 40 , Issue 3-4 , October 1991 , pp. 269 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1991

References

REFERENCES

1. Allen, G (1984): Multiple births. In Bracken, MB (ed): Perinatal Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, p 152–189.Google Scholar
2. Bressers, WMA, Eriksson, AW, Kostense, PJ, Parisi, P (1987): Increasing trend in the monozygotic twinning rate. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36: 397–408.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Bulmer, MG (1970): The Biology of Twinning in Man. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
4. Burch, PRJ (1981): The age distribution of dizygotic twinning in humans and cattle: etiologic implications. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): Twin Research 3: Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R Liss, p 115–122.Google Scholar
5. Chambers, JM, Cleveland, WS, Kleiner, B, Tukey, PA (1983): Graphical Methods for Data Analysis. Boston: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
6. Charbonneau, H, Légaré, J (1989): Personal communication.Google Scholar
7. Derom, C, Vlietinck, R, Derom, R, Van den Berghe, H, Thiery, M (1987): Increased monozygotic twinning rate after ovulation induction. Lancet 1: 1236–1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Doherty, JDH, Lancaster, PAL (1986): The secular trend of twinning in Australia, 1853-1982. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 35: 61–76.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Doherty, JDH (1988): Height of women, twinning and breast cancer: Epidemiological evidence of a relationship. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 37: 263–275.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Elwood, JM (1978): Maternal and environmental factors affecting twin births in Canadian cities. Br J Obst Gynaecol 85: 351–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Eriksson, AW, Fellman, J (1967): Twinning and legitimacy. Hereditas 57: 395–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Eriksson, AW, Fellman, J (1967): Twinning in relation to the marital status of the mother. Acta Genet 17: 385–398.Google Scholar
13. Grigg, ERN (1970): Basics of biologic relativity. Hum Biol 42: 151–183.Google ScholarPubMed
14. Imaizumi, Y., Inouye, E (1979): Analysis of multiple birth rates in Japan. 1. Secular trend, maternal age effect, and geographical variation in twinning rates. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 28: 107–124.Google ScholarPubMed
15. Inouye, E, Imaizumi, Y (1981): Analysis of twinning rates in Japan. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): Twin Research 3: Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R Liss, p 21–33.Google Scholar
16. Jacobson, HI, Thompson, WD, Janerich, DT (1989): Multiple births and maternal risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 129: 865–873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. James, WH (1975): The declines in dizygotic twinning rates and in birth rates. Ann Hum Biol 2: 81–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. James, WH (1977): Secular changes in dizygotic twinning rates. J Biosoc Sci 4: 427–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Khoury, MJ, Erickson, JD (1983): Maternal factors in dizygotic twinning: Evidence from interracial crosses. Ann Hum Biol 10: 409–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Kleinbaum, DG, Kupper, LL, Morgenstern, H (1982): Epidemiologic Research. Principles and Quantitative Methods. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications.Google Scholar
21. Knudson, AG (1971): Mutation and cancer: Statistical study of retinoblastoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 68: 820–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Marinho, AO, Ilesanmi, AO, Ladele, OA, Asuni, OH, Omigbodun, A, Oyejide, CO (1986): A fall in the rate of multiple births in Ibadan and Ogbo Ora, Nigeria. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 35: 201–204.Google Scholar
23. Nylander, PPS (1975): The causation of twinning. In MacGiUivray, I, Nylander, PPS, Corney, G (eds): Human Multiple Reproduction. London: WB Saunders Co, p 77–86.Google Scholar
24. Parisi, P, Gatti, M, Prinzi, G, Caperna, G (1983): Familial incidence of twinning. Nature 304: 626–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Pauling, L (1989): Biostatistical analysis of mortality data for cohorts of cancer patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86: 3466–3468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Payami, H (1989): A simple method to detect and estimate heterogeneity: Application to Huntington disease, diabetes, and HIV seroconversion. Am J Hum Genet 44: 107–114.Google ScholarPubMed
27. Philippe, P (1981): Twinning and the changing pattern of breast feeding: A possible relationship in a small rural population. Soc Biol 28: 167–175.Google Scholar
28. Philippe, P (1985): Genetic epidemiology of twinning: A population-based study. Am J Med Genet 19: 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Philippe, P (1990): Twinning causative origin investigated by Sartwell's biometrical model. Am J Hum Biol 2:107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Sartwell, PE (1950): The distribution of incubation periods of infectious disease. Am J Hyg 51: 310–318.Google ScholarPubMed
31. Soma, H, Takayama, M, Kiyokawa, T, Akaeda, T, Tokoro, K (1975): Serum gonadotropin levels in Japanese women. Obstet Gynecol 46: 311–312.Google ScholarPubMed
32. Wyshak, G (1975 ): Twinning rates among women at the end of their reproductive span and their relation to age at menopause. Am J Epidemiol 102: 170–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Wyshak, G (1975): Some observations in the decline in the United States dizygotic twinning rate. Soc Biol 20: 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Wyshak, G, Frisch, RE (1982): Evidence for a secular trend in age at menarche. New Engl J Med 306: 1033–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Wyshak, G, Honeyman, MS, Flannery, JT (1983): Cancer in mothers of dizygotic twins. J Natl Cancer Inst 70: 593–599.Google ScholarPubMed