| Literature DB >> 24891874 |
François Criscuolo1,2, Fabrice Bertile3,2, Marine I Plumel3,2, Antoine Stier1,2, Danièle Thiersé3,2, Alain van Dorsselaer3,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Life history theories predict that investment in current reproduction comes at a cost for future reproduction and survival. Oxidative stress is one of the best documented mechanisms underlying costs of reproduction to date. However, other, yet to be described molecular mechanisms that play a short term role during reproduction may explain the negative relationships underlying the cost of reproduction. To identify such new mechanisms, we used a global proteomic determination of liver protein profiles in laboratory adult female mice whose litter size had been either reduced or enlarged after birth. This litter size manipulation was expected to affect females by either raising or decreasing their current reproductive effort. At the same time, global parameters and levels of oxidative stress were also measured in all females.Entities:
Keywords: Ageing; Mice; Oxidative stress; Proteomics; Reproduction cost; Trade-off
Year: 2014 PMID: 24891874 PMCID: PMC4041047 DOI: 10.1186/1742-9994-11-41
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Zool ISSN: 1742-9994 Impact factor: 3.172
ANOVAs for Global parameters in litters and reproductive adult females
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | 8.3 ± 0.8 | 6.8 ± 0.5 | 7.3 ± 0.9 | F2,11 = 1.61 | 0.253 | |
| [0] | [-2.0 ± 1.2] | [-0.5 ± 1.2] | ||||||
| | | | 7.0 ± 0.9 | 9.3 ± 0.6 | 4.5 ± 0.7 | F2,11 = 5.97 | 0.022 | |
| [0] | [1.0 ± 1.1] | [-2.8 ± 1.1] | ||||||
| Final litter size | | | 49.9 ± 4.0 | 45.4 ± 4.7 | 59.0 ± 5.3 | F2,11 = 1.35 | 0.313 | |
| P = 0.001 | [0] | [-4.5 ± 5.8] | [9.1 ± 7.2] | |||||
| | [8.3 ± 1.6] | | | | | | | |
| Initial litter mass | Stage | Individual | 27.4 ± 2.6 | 28.5 ± 2.6 | 31.7 ± 2.6 | F2,8.2 = 4.00 | 0.061 | |
| | | | 26.5 ± 2.6 | 27.7 ± 2.6 | 30.8 ± 2.6 | |||
| P = 0.040 | P = 0.225 | | 27.0 ± 2.5 | 28.1 ± 2.6 | 31.2 ± 2.5 | |||
| [0.2 ± 0.1] | [3.5 ± 2.8] | [4.1 ± 3.6] | [0] | [1.40 ± 1.8] | [4.9 ± 1.8] | |||
| Antioxidant capacity | | | 10.5 ± 0.7 | 12.4 ± 0.7 | 10.0 ± 0.7 | F2,11 = 5.57 | 0,030 | |
| P = 0.002 | [0] | [1.9 ± 0.8] | [-0.8 ± 0.8] | |||||
| [0.1 ± 0.1] | ||||||||
Results of ANOVAs for global parameters in litters (a) and reproductive adult females (b) subjected to litter size manipulation (Control, FEL and FRL groups). “Initial” refers to pre-reproduction (i.e. 3 weeks before pairing) while “Final” refers to offspring emancipation (Day 21) characteristics. Analysis of variation in adult female body mass over time and treatment was done using a Mixed Model (see Statistic description for details).
Figure 1Plasma oxidative stress (mean ± SE) in reproductive female mice. Females were sampled at the end of the reproduction event. Litter sizes were either experimentally reduced, enlarged or unchanged (Control). Each group has a sample size of 4 individuals. Oxidative damage levels differed significantly (ANOVA) between females with enlarged and reduced litters (indicated by different letters). See text for detailed statistical analysis.
Results of separate ANOVAs conducted on each protein spot detected.
| 657 | Indolethylamine N-methyltransferase | gi|731019 | Methylation, ageing | 7.80 | |
| 516 | Fructose-1,6-biphosphatase 1 | gi|14547989 | Carbohydrate metabolism, calcium chelation | 7.58 | |
| 570 | Glycine N-methytransferase | gi|15679953 | Biogenesis, methylation, carbohydrate metabolism | 6.12 | |
| Malate dehydrogenase 1 | gi|148675904 | ||||
| 422 | Alpha-enolase | gi|13637776 | Cell growth, biogenesis, methylation | 5.19 | |
| Adenosylhomocysteinase | gi|21431841 | ||||
| 553 | Dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase 1 | gi|45476974 | Regulation of nitric oxide generation | 4.83 | |
| 383 | Selenium-binding protein 1 | gi|148840436 | Cell differentiation | 4.51 | |
| 748 | Regucalcin | gi|2498920 | Calcium homeostasis, ageing | 4.46 | |
| 355/365 | Catalase | gi|157951741 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.01/0.03 | 0.99/0.97 |
| 437 | Ndufs 2 protein | gi|13278096 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.08 | 0.93 |
| 637 | Hydroxyacyl glutathione hydrolase | gi|13435786 | Response to oxidative stress | 1.10 | 0.37 |
| Carbonic anhydrase 3 | gi|148673185 | ||||
| 663/672 | Peroxiredoxin 6 | gi|6671549 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.73/0.77 | 0.51/0.49 |
| 702/791 | Peroxiredoxin 1 | gi|547923 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.73/0.38 | 0.51/0.69 |
| 843/850 | Glutathione transferase | gi|193703 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.05/0.11 | 0.95/0.90 |
| 681/683 | Glutathione transferase zeta 1 | gi|148670978 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.91/0.06 | 0.44/0.94 |
| 702 | SOD 2 protein | gi|17390379 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.73 | 0.51 |
| 665/853 | Glutathione S transferase Mu 1 | gi|121716 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.17/0.42 | 0.85/0.67 |
| 665/673 | Glutathione S transferase Mu 2 | gi|121718 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.17/0.80 | 0.85/0.48 |
| 853 | Glutathione S transferase Mu 3 | gi|121720 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.42 | 0.67 |
| 850 | Glutathione S transferase Kappa 1 | gi|47116757 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.11 | 0.90 |
| 680 | Glutathione S transferase theta-1 | gi|160298219 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.68 | 0.53 |
| 791 | Glutathione S-transferase P 1 | gi|121747 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.38 | 0.69 |
| 681 | Thioredoxin-dependent peroxide reductase | gi|126986 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.91 | 0.44 |
| 639 | Carbonic anhydrase 2 | gi|146345383 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.80 | 0.48 |
| 386/390/393/633/637/647/649/778 | Carbonic anhydrase 3 | gi|148673185 | Response to oxidative stress | 0.22/0.07/0.19/0.29/1.10/0.10/0.58/0.36 | 0.81/0.93/0.83/0.76/0.37/0.90/0.58/0.71 |
Data were collected in reproductive females belonging to FEL, FRL and Control groups (n = 4 per group). Multiple ANOVAs were used to determine the spots that were likely to be affected by the experimental treatment, and that then entered the subsequent statistical analysis (see Materials and methods for details). Only 7 protein spots containing 9 different proteins were found to be significantly affected by the litter manipulation (in bold). The proteins related to oxidative balance that were detected in the proteomic analysis of the liver samples but which were apparently not affected by litter size are also indicated. Spot N° correspond to the protein spots reported in Additional file 1: Figure S1. The biological activity of proteins as determined using the so-called biological process ontologies (http://www.geneontology.org/) were automatically extracted using the MSDA software suite (https://msda.unistra.fr), and complemented with literature examination.
Principal Component Analysis conducted on liver protein expression
| Regucalcin (spot N°748) | 0.86 | |
| Fructose-1,6-biphosphatase 1 (spot N°516) | 0.82 | |
| Indolethylamine N-methyltransferase (spot N°657) | 0.74 | |
| Glycine N-methytransferase and/or Malate dehydrogenase 1 (spot N°570) | | 0.93 |
| Alpha-enolase and/or Adenosylhomocysteinase (spot N°422) | | 0.89 |
| Selenium-binding protein 1 (spot N°383) | | -0.72 |
Principal Component Analysis was run from liver protein expression data of 12 reproductive adult females after litter size manipulation. Spot N° correspond to those reported in Additional file 1: Figure S1.
Separate ANOVAs conducted on PC1 and PC2 values of individual reproductive female mice
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Litter size manipulation | 20.68 | 2, 11 | 4.89 | 2, 11 | ||
| Final litter size | 0.20 | 1, 11 | 0,67 | 1.81 | 1, 11 | 0.22 |
| Final female body mass | 0.01 | 1, 11 | 0.91 | 1,15 | 1, 11 | 0,32 |
Final litter size and female body mass at the end of the experiment (n = 12, 4 females in each group) were initially included as covariates (P values indicated in brackets) but were dropped sequentially to obtain the final model. Bold values indicate significant effects.
Figure 2Principal Component Analysis of liver proteomics data. Modulation by litter size manipulation of female liver protein expression related to calcium metabolism and ageing (PC1) and to cell growth regulation and biogenesis (PC2). Principal Component Analysis was conducted on 7 protein spots (i.e. 9 proteins). See text for statistical details. Bars (±SE) labelled with different letters are significantly different.
Figure 3Combined-group plot of canonical discriminant function scores. Both individual discriminant scores (circles) and group centroids (squares) are shown. The x-axis shows that function 1 best discriminates the females with reduced litters on one side, and the two other groups on the other side, while the y-axis shows that function 2 separates the Control from the two other groups, but for a lower difference than function 1. Function 1 is mainly driven by an increased expression of regucalcin in females with reduced litters (horizontal arrow), while function 2 is defined by a reduced expression of alpha-enolase and glycine N-methyltransferase/malate dehydrogenase in females with enlarged litters (horizontal arrow).