| Literature DB >> 28173760 |
Anne Beemelmanns1, Olivia Roth2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phenotypic changes in response to environmental influences can persist from one generation into the next. In many systems parental parasite experience influences offspring immune responses, known as transgenerational immune priming (TGIP). TGIP in vertebrates is mainly maternal and short-term, supporting the adaptive immune system of the offspring during its maturation. However, if fathers and offspring have a close physical connection, evolution of additional paternal immune priming can be adaptive. Biparental TGIP may result in maximized immunological protection. Here, we investigate multigenerational biparental TGIP in the sex-role reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle by exposing grandparents to an immune challenge with heat-killed bacteria and assessing gene expression (44 target genes) of the F2-generation.Entities:
Keywords: Epigenetic inheritance; Gene expression; Grandparental effects; Host-parasite interaction; Immune defense; Immune priming
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28173760 PMCID: PMC5297188 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-017-0885-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Experimental design. The grandparental generation (F0) was vaccinated using a combination of heat-killed immunological novel Vibrio spp. and Tenacibaculum maritimum (F0-bacteria), or were left naïve (F0-N) as control. Immune-challenged mature pipefish were used in following mating design: 1. Control: [♀F0-naïve x ♂F0-naïve]; 2. Paternal: [♀F0-naïve x ♂F0-bacteria]; 3. Maternal: [♀F0-bacteria x ♂F0-naïve] and 4. Biparental: [♀F0-bacteria x ♂F0-bacteria] and kept according to their mating pairs (families) in separate 36 × 80 L semi-flow through aquaria (16 family replicates per parental bacteria treatment and eight per control group; 56 families). F1-individuals were crossed within former parental treatment groups but left immunologically naïve (out of each of the four grandparental treatment groups five families were chosen to do F1-crosses resulting in 20 F1-families). In spring 2014, F2-juveniles were exposed one-week post birth to the same heat-killed Vibrio (F2-V+) and Tenacibaculum (F2-T+) bacteria used for the F0-generation or left naïve (F2-N) (per F1-crossing four families produced F2-offspring resulting in 16 F1-families). Out of each family 12 individuals were chosen for the direct immune challenge. Per F2-offspring treatment (F2-V+, F2-T+, F2-N) four individual replicates were used; resulting in a total of 192 samples
Results from 2-way PERMANOVA analysis of gene expression of one-week-old F2-juveniles
| Gene categories | Model | F0-sex | F2-bacteria | F0-sex x F2-bacteria | Size | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | F.Model | Pr(>F) | F.Model | Pr(>F) | F.Model | Pr(>F) | F.Model | Pr(>F) | ||||
| Immune genes [29 genes-total] | 0.83 | 6.82 |
|
| 3.08 |
|
| 1.32 |
|
| 1.13 | 0.641 |
| Innate immune genes [13 genes] | 0.83 | 6.67 |
|
| 2.01 |
|
| 1.87 |
|
| 1.26 | 0.431 |
| Adaptive immune genes [8 genes] | 0.80 | 1.53 | 0.108 | 1.00 | 0.184 | 0.99 | 0.100 | 1.71 | 0.521 | |||
| Innate & Adaptive genes [5 genes] | 0.84 | 5.88 |
|
| 5.47 |
|
| 0.71 | 0.622 | 0.86 | 0.460 | |
| Complement component genes [3 genes] | 0.86 | 5.31 |
|
| 3.66 |
|
| 0.80 | 0.237 | 0.71 | 0.790 | |
| Epigenetic genes [15 genes-total] | 0.85 | 6.63 |
|
| 1.64 |
|
| 1.22 |
|
| 0.62 | 0.894 |
| DNA-methylation genes [5 genes] | 0.85 | 6.09 | 0.061 | . | 2.26 |
|
| 1.18 | 0.081 | . | 0.84 | 0.812 |
| Histone de/methylation genes [4 genes] | 0.89 | 4.16 | 0.195 | 0.68 | 0.516 | 1.33 | 0.082 | . | 0.20 | 0.844 | ||
| Histone deacetylation genes [3 genes] | 0.86 | 5.65 | 0.079 | . | 1.23 | 0.126 | 1.21 | 0.060 | . | 1.39 | 0.621 | |
| Histone acetylation genes [2 genes] | 0.78 | 12.47 |
|
| 2.03 |
|
| 1.09 | 0.065 | . | 0.15 | 0.896 |
| Degrees of Freedom | DF = 3 | DF = 2 | DF = 6 | DF = 1 | ||||||||
| Residual Degrees of Freedom | 174 | |||||||||||
| Total Degrees of Freedom | 186 |
| ||||||||||
Multivariate PERMANOVA analysis to assess the effect and interaction of the two fixed factors F0-sex and F2-offspring, size as covariate and family as strata term on relative gene expression values (−∆Ct-values). Each analysis was based on an Euclidean distance matrix with p-values obtained by 10000 permutations. Significant p-values are marked in bold letters and asterix symbol (significance code: <0.001***, 0.001**, 0.01*, 0.1 > p-value ≥ 0.05 trend ●). R2 value indicate the percentage of variance explained by the model
Fig. 2Principle Component Analysis (PCA) depicting the grandparental bacteria treatment effect on gene expression of one-week-old F2-juveniles. PCA to visualize gene categories revealing a significant different gene expression profiles per grandparental control (F0-control), grand-paternal (F0-paternal), grand-maternal (F0-maternal) and grand-biparental (F0-biparental) bacteria treatment groups (Panels a-f) on relative gene expression data (−∆Ct-values) using an Euclidean distance matrix (N = 192). Panel a all immune genes (29 genes-total), Panel b genes of the innate immune system (13 genes), Panel c genes of the innate & adaptive immune system (5 genes); Panel d complement component genes (3 genes); Panel e epigenetic regulation genes (15 genes-total) and Panel f histone acetylation genes (2 genes). The variance in percentage (%) explained by the respective principle coordinates (PCs) is indicated below (for PC1) and besides (for PC2) the corresponding axis. The size (cm) of the grid is indicated by `d´ for dimension in the upper right corner
Results from PERMANOVA and ANOSIM analysis of one-week-old F2-juveniles per functional gene categories
| F2-juveniles (One-week-old) | Immune genes [ | Innate genes [ | Adaptive genes [ | Innate & Adaptive genes [ | Complement component genes [ | Epigenetic genes [ | DNA-methylation genes [ | Histone-de/methylation genes [ | Histone deacetlyation genes [ | Histone acetylation genes [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F0-sex (DF = 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ANOSIM-Global R | 0.115 | 0.12 |
| 0.104 | 0.054 | 0.088 |
|
|
| 0.088 |
| Significance level | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
|
|
| 0.1% |
| F0-Bi, F0-Mat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F0-Bi, F0-Pat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F0-Mat, F0-Pat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F0-Bi, F0-N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F0-Mat, F0-N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F0-Pat, F0-N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F2-bacteria (DF = 2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ANOSIM-Global R | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| 0.026 | 0.024 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
|
| 0.009 |
| Significance level | 7.4% | 11.5% |
| 2.1% | 5.9% | 31.9% | 20.9% |
|
| 72.9% |
| F2-V+, F2-T+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F2-V+, F2-N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F2-T+, F2-N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F0-sex x F2-bacteria (DF = 6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ANOSIM-Global R | 0.105 | 0.103 |
|
|
| 0.074 |
|
|
|
|
| Significance level | 0.1% | 0.1% |
|
|
| 0.1% |
|
|
|
|
| F0-Mat/F2-V+, F0-Pat/F2-V+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F0-Mat/F2-V+, F0-Pat/F2-T+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F0-Mat/F2-T+, F0-Pat/F2-V+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F0-Mat/F2-T+, F0-Pat/F2-T+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
Multivariate ANOSIM was performed following significant PERMANOVA effects to assess differences in the gene expression profiles per treatment groups applying pairwise comparison on relative gene expression data (−∆Ct-values) based on a Euclidean distance matrix and 10000 permutations. Pairwise comparison was conducted for following two fixed factors and their interactions: ‘F0-sex’ (grandparental (F0-Bi), grand-maternal (F0-Mat), grand-paternal (F0-Pat), grandparental control (F0-N)) and ‘F2-bacteria’ (F2-offspring control (F2-N), F2-offspring Vibrio (F2-V+) and Tenacibaculum (F2-T+) bacteria treatment)
Fig. 3Factor maps to demonstrate the contribution of variance retained by each principal component for immune genes (29 genes-total) and epigenetic regulation genes (15 genes-total) of one-week-old F2-juveniles. The response variables (genes) are symbolized by arrows whereby the length of the arrow is directional proportional with the contribution of variance of each gene to the total variability. The colour gradient in the left corner highlights the most important genes in explaining the variation (contribution %) retained by the principle components calculated according to [97]