↓ Skip to main content

Environmental chemicals and DNA methylation in adults: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epigenetics, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 326)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Environmental chemicals and DNA methylation in adults: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13148-015-0055-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian Ruiz-Hernandez, Chin-Chi Kuo, Pilar Rentero-Garrido, Wan-Yee Tang, Josep Redon, Jose M Ordovas, Ana Navas-Acien, Maria Tellez-Plaza

Abstract

Current evidence supports the notion that environmental exposures are associated with DNA-methylation and expression changes that can impact human health. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of epidemiologic studies evaluating the association between environmental chemicals with DNA methylation levels in adults. After excluding arsenic, recently evaluated in a systematic review, we identified a total of 17 articles (6 on cadmium, 4 on lead, 2 on mercury, 1 on nickel, 1 on antimony, 1 on tungsten, 5 on persistent organic pollutants and perfluorinated compounds, 1 on bisphenol A, and 3 on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). The selected articles reported quantitative methods to determine DNA methylation including immunocolorimetric assays for total content of genomic DNA methylation, and microarray technologies, methylation-specific quantitative PCR, Luminometric Methylation Assay (LUMA), and bisulfite pyrosequencing for DNA methylation content of genomic sites such as gene promoters, LINE-1, Alu elements, and others. Considering consistency, temporality, strength, dose-response relationship, and biological plausibility, we concluded that the current evidence is not sufficient to provide inference because differences across studies and limited samples sizes make it difficult to compare across studies and to evaluate sources of heterogeneity. Important questions for future research include the need for larger and longitudinal studies, the validation of findings, and the systematic evaluation of the dose-response relationships. Future studies should also consider the evaluation of epigenetic marks recently in the research spotlight such as DNA hydroxymethylation and the role of underlying genetic variants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 159 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 23%
Researcher 27 16%
Student > Master 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Other 9 5%
Other 32 19%
Unknown 24 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 32 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 18%
Environmental Science 12 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 38 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2015.
All research outputs
#252,003
of 6,306,418 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#15
of 326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,026
of 168,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,306,418 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.