Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:43:19.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Twin Zygosity Diagnosis by Mailed Questionnaire below Age Twelve Months

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

C. Charlemaine*
Affiliation:
INSERM - U. 155. Genetic Epidemiology - University of Paris VII, France
M. Duyme
Affiliation:
INSERM - U. 155. Genetic Epidemiology - University of Paris VII, France
J-T. Aubin
Affiliation:
Saint Antoine Hospital; Paris, France
F. Guis
Affiliation:
Antoine Béclère Hospital, Clamart, France
N. Marquiset
Affiliation:
Antoine Béclère Hospital, Clamart, France
I. de Pirieux
Affiliation:
Antoine Béclère Hospital, Clamart, France
N. Strub
Affiliation:
Antoine Béclère Hospital, Clamart, France
Y. Brossard
Affiliation:
Saint Antoine Hospital; Paris, France
G. Jarry
Affiliation:
Antoine Béclère Hospital, Clamart, France
R. Frydman
Affiliation:
Antoine Béclère Hospital, Clamart, France
J. C. Pons
Affiliation:
Gynecology Obstetrics Department, Cochin Port-Royal Hospital, Paris, France
*
INSERM - U. 155. Epidémiologie génétique - Universite Paris VII, Tour 16 - Case 7041 - 2, Place Jussieu - 75251, Paris 05, France ([email protected])

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.

Parents of a sample of 76 same sexed pairs of twins aged 3 to 9 months completed a mailed similarity questionnaire. It included the Bonnelykke et al.'s questionnaire and a four anthropological variable scale. To improve each of these two methods, three other combined methods were carried out and results were compared with the biological zygosity diagnosis. The Bonnelykke et al.'s classification combined with anthropological scale (method 4) gave only 1.2% misclassified in the whole sample. It is concluded that zygosity diagnosis using this type of procedure to distinguish MZ and DZ pairs would be important not only for epidemiological study but also for pediatricians and parents.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1999

References

REFERENCES

1.Appelman, Z, Manor, M, Magal, N, Caspi, B, Shohat, M, Blickstein, I (1994): Prenatal diagnosis of twin zygosity by DNA ‘Fingerprint’ analysis. Prenatal Diagnosis 14: 307309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Azuma, C, Kamiura, S, Nobunaga, T, Negoro, T, Saji, F, Taruzawa, O (1989): Zygosity determination of multiple pregnancy by deoxyribonucleic acid fingerprints. Am J Obstet Gynecol 160: 734–6.Google Scholar
3.Becker, A, Busjahn, A, Faulhaber, HD, Bähring, S, Robertson, J, Schuster, H, Luft, F (1997): Twin zygosity. Automated determination with microsatellites. J Reprod Med 42: 260266.Google Scholar
4.Bonnelykke, B, Hauge, M, Holm, N, Kristoffersen, K, Gurtler, H (1989): Evaluation of zygosity diagnosis in twin pairs below age seven by means of a mailed questionnaire. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 38: 305313.Google Scholar
5.Derom, C, Bakker, E, Vlietinck, R, Derom, R, Van den Berghe, H, Thiery, M, Pearson, P (1985): Zygosity determination in newborn twins using DNA variants. J Med Genet 22: 279282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Freeman, B, Powell, J, Ball, D, Hill, L, Craig, I, Plomin, R (1997): DNA by mail an inexpensive and noninvasive method for collecting DNA samples from widely dispersed populations. Behavior Genetics 27(3): 251257.Google Scholar
7.Machin, GA (1990): Definitive methods of zygosity determination in twins relevance to problem in the biology of twinning. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 39: 459471.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Machin, GA (1994): Twins and their zygosity. The Lancet 343: 1577.Google Scholar
9.Norton, ME, D'alton, ME, Bianchi, DW (1997): Molecular zygosity studies aid in the management of discordant multiple gestations. Journal of Perinatology 17 (3): 202–7.Google Scholar
10.Ooki, S, Yamada, K, Asaka, A (1993): Zygosity diagnosis of twins by questionnaire for twins' mothers. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 42: 1722.Google Scholar
11.Pergament, E (1995): Postnatal zygosity determination. In Keith, LG, Papiernik, E, Keith, DM, and Luke, B (eds) Multiple pregnancy: epidemiology, gestation & perinatal outcome. New York: The Parthenon Publishing Group, pp. 625632.Google Scholar
12.Pons, JC, Duyme, M, Brassard, Y (1996): Jumeaux monozygotes et dizygotes: génétique et environnement in utero. Sinthèse du Rapport d'Activité du Projet de 1992. En collaboration avec Frydman, R, Ville, Y, Doumerc, S, Tremblay, R, Capron, C, Charlemaine, C, et le Groupe Romulus.Google Scholar
13.Scarr, S, Carter, Saltzman (1979): Twin Method: Defense of a Critical Assumption. Behavior Genetics 9 (6): 527542.Google Scholar
14.Sepulveda, W, Sebire, NJ, Hugues, K, Odibo, A, Nicolaides, KH (1996): The lambda sign at 10-14 weeks of gestation as a predictor of chorionicity in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 7 (6): 421423.Google Scholar
15.Wood, SL, St Onge, R, Connors, G, Elliot, PD (1996): Evaluation of the twin peak or lambda sign in determining chorionicity in multiple pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 88(1): 69.Google Scholar