Monozygous twins share a common genotype. However, most monozygotic twin pairs are not identical; several types of phenotypic discordance may be observed, such as differences in susceptibilities to disease and a wide range of anthropomorphic features. There are several possible explanations for these observations, but one is the existence of epigenetic differences. To address this issue, we examined the global and locus-specific differences in DNA methylation and histone acetylation of a large cohort of monozygotic twins. We found that, although twins are epigenetically indistinguishable during the early years of life, older monozygous twins exhibited remarkable differences in their overall content and genomic distribution of 5-methylcytosine DNA and histone acetylation, affecting their gene-expression portrait. These findings indicate how an appreciation of epigenetics is missing from our understanding of how different phenotypes can be originated from the same genotype.

Transcriptional repression mechanisms have emerged as one of the crucial processes for the downregulation of E-cadherin expression during development and tumour progression. Recently, several E-cadherin transcriptional repressors have been characterized (Snail, E12/E47, ZEB-1 and SIP-1) and shown to act through an interaction with proximal E-boxes of the E-cadherin promoter. We have analyzed the participation of another member of the Snail family, Slug, and observed that it also behaves as a repressor of E-cadherin expression. Stable expression of Slug in MDCK cells leads to the full repression of E-cadherin at transcriptional level and triggers a complete epithelial to mesenchymal transition. Slug-induced repression of E-cadherin is mediated by its binding to proximal E-boxes, particularly to the E-pal element of the mouse promoter. Detailed analysis of the binding affinity of different repressors to the E-pal element indicates that Slug binds with lower affinity than Snail and E47 proteins. These results, together with the known expression patterns of these factors in embryonic development and carcinoma cell lines, support the idea that the in vivo action of the different factors in E-cadherin repression can be modulated by their relative concentrations as well as by specific cellular or tumour contexts.