Lifestyle differences between co-twins are associated with decreased similarity in their internal and external exposome profiles

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1:. Study workflow diagram. The study was divided into two main analyses (A), which followed the calculation of Within-Pair Proximity Scores (WPPS) at the level of each domain (B). Cross-domain WPPS analysis involved pairwise linear regressions, while the ExWAS analysis was designed to identify associations between lifestyle differences and WPPS scores in twin pairs.

• 

  Fig. 2:. Associations between within-pair proximity scores across the four domains in all twin pairs, in monozygotic twin pairs only, and in dizygotic twin pairs only. (A) Graphical representation of the WPPS of each pair across all domains. (B) Standardized estimates of the associations across domains for MZ and DZ twin pairs separately. The horizontal and vertical bars represent the 95% confidence intervals of the standardized estimates in the MZ and DZ twin pairs, respectively. Standardized positive coefficients for which the confidence interval does not include zero indicate that a high degree of closeness between co-twins at the level of a given domain was also reflected in a higher degree of closeness between co-twins at the level of a second domain. The range where estimates for MZ twins were larger than those for DZ twins is indicated by the yellow area. (C) R2 measures in all twin pairs, in MZ twin pairs only, or in DZ twin pairs only. The sample sizes for each of the associations that led to the displayed R2 are available in the supplementary material (Figure S1).

• 

  Fig. 3:. Associations between domain-specific within-pair proximity scores and binary variables indicating discordance in twin pairs. The log10 nominal p-values that have FDR corrected p-values of less than 0.20 are shown in yellow. The dashed lines indicate the threshold value of a nominal p-value of 0.05.