Key result
The Chinese National Twin Registry includes 61,566 twin pairs and serves as a major resource for analyzing genetic and environmental influences on chronic and cardiovascular diseases.
The Chinese National Twin Registry is a large-scale resource for studying genetic and environmental factors in chronic and cardiovascular diseases.
Large twin resources aid gene-environment CVD research; leaves open clinical translation without prospective validation.
The Chinese National Twin Registry (CNTR) currently includes data from 61 566 twin pair from 11 provinces or cities in China. Of these, 31 705, 15 060 and 13 531 pairs are monozygotic, same-sex dizygotic and opposite-sex dizygotic pairs, respectively, determined by opposite sex or intrapair similarity. Since its establishment in 2001, the CNTR has provided an important resource for analysing genetic and environmental influences on chronic diseases especially cardiovascular diseases. Recently, the CNTR has focused on collecting biologic specimens from disease-concordant or disease-discordant twin pairs or from twin pairs reared apart. More than 8000 pairs of these twins have been registered, and blood samples have been collected from more than 1500 pairs. In this review, we summarize the main findings from univariate and multivariate genetic effects analyses, gene-environment interaction studies, omics studies exploring DNA methylation and metabolomic markers associated with phenotypes. There remains further scope for CNTR research and data mining. The plan for future development of the CNTR is described. The CNTR welcomes worldwide collaboration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2019) conducted a review in Chronic diseases, especially cardiovascular diseases (n=123,132). Chinese National Twin Registry was evaluated. The Chinese National Twin Registry includes 61,566 twin pairs and serves as a major resource for analyzing genetic and environmental influences on chronic and cardiovascular diseases.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: