| Literature DB >> 28931827 |
Qitao Zhan1, Xuchen Qi2, Ning Wang1, Fang Le1, Luna Mao1, Xinyun Yang1, Mu Yuan1, Hangying Lou1, Xiangrong Xu1, Xijing Chen1, Fan Jin3,4.
Abstract
Although the prevalence of Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has increased year by year, there remains concern about the safety of these procedures because of reports of the increased risk for imprinting disorders. Previous research has demonstrated that gonadotropin stimulation contributes to an increased incidence of epimutations in ICSI-derived mice. However, the epimutations in ICSI offspring after removing the effect of gonadotropin stimulation and the possibility that epimutations are reversible by developmental reprogramming has not been investigated. Our study is the first to investigate the effect of ICSI itself on methylation and exclude the effect of superovulation using the kidney tissues from the adult and old mice. We found reduced methylation and up-regulated expression of the imprinted genes, H19, Mest and Peg3, in adult ICSI mice, but the above alterations observed in adult mice were not detected in old ICSI mice. At the Snrpn DMR, methylation status was not altered in adult ICSI-derived mice, but hypermethylation and correlated down-regulated expression of Snrpn were observed in old mice. In conclusion, ICSI manipulation and early embryo culture resulted in alterations of methylation in differentially methylated region of H19, Mest, Peg3 and Snrpn, and the alterations were reprogrammed by developmental reprogramming.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28931827 PMCID: PMC5607335 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-11778-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic comparison of the TCET and ICSI procedures. (a) The TCET group is established by in vivo fertilization after gonadotropin stimulation. After 2-cell embryo is obtained from the oviduct, the embryo is subsequently transferred into a pseudo-pregnant mouse. (b) The ICSI mice also begin with the injection of gonadotropin and end with transferring 2-cell embryo into surrogate mice. A primary difference between the two procedures is the manipulation and injection of occytes and culture for ICSI, while only in vivo fertilization for TCET. (Drawn by authors Q. Z and X. Q).
Figure 2DNA methylation of the H19 and Snrpn DMRs in kidney tissues of adult and old ICSI-derived and TCET conceived mice. (a) Schematic representation of the differential methylated regions analyzed by bisulfite sequencing PCR (BSP) or pyrosequencing or both of them. The target sequences examined by pyrosequencing were in the boxes and CpG sites were underlined. (b) Methylation profiles by BSP (12 CpG sites) for the H19 DMR from ICSI-derived and TCET conceived mice. (c) Methylation profiles by BSP (16 CpG sites) for the Snrpn DMR from ICSI-derived and TCET conceived mice. (d) Statistical methylation analysis of H19 DMR and Snrpn DMR (Pearson chi-square test was used for the analysis: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05).
Figure 3Pyrosequencing analyses of the methylation profiles from ICSI-derived, TCET conceived and natural mating mice of adult and old age. There are 3 CpG sites for the H19 DMR (a), 5 CpG sites for the Snrpn DMR (b), 4 CpG sites for the Mest DMR (c) and 5 CpG sites for the Peg3 DMR (d) (t-test was used for the analysis. ICSI versus TCET: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05. TCET versus Nature: ##p < 0.01; #p < 0.05). The pyrogram of pyrosequencing of one sample in each gene and each group was shown in Supplementary Figure S1.
Figure 4Relative expression of mRNA of the imprinted genes in kidney tissues of ICSI-derived and TCET-derived mice. (a) and (b) are the results of adult and old mice (**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05).
Body weights and weights of kidney tissues in ICSI mice and TCET mice (Mean ± SD).
| Weights (g) | Adult | Old | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICSI | TCET | ICSI | TCET | |
| Body | 25.00 ± 3.03 | 26.16 ± 3.78 | 24.73 ± 2.60 | 25.04 ± 3.56 |
| Kidney | 0.40 ± 0.07 | 0.38 ± 0.05 | 0.44 ± 0.05 | 0.40 ± 0.07 |
Primer sequences used for bisulfite pyrosequencing.
| Gene (Position) | Primer Sequences | Product Size (bp) |
|---|---|---|
|
| (Forward) 5′-TTTTTGGGTAGTTTTTTTAGTTTTG-3′ | 211 |
| (chr7:142580208-142580418) | (Reverse) 5′-biotin-ACACAAATACCTAATCCCTTTATTAAAC-3′ | |
|
| (Forward) 5′-TTTTGGTAGTTGTTTTTTGGTAGG-3′ | 240 |
| (chr7: 60005020-60005259) | (Reverse) 5′-biotin-CACAAACCCAACTAACCTTCC-3′ | |
|
| (Forward) 5′-TTTAGGGTGTTTGTATTGTGATTG-3′ | 181 |
| (chr6: 30737310-30737490) | (Reverse) 5′-biotin-TCACATAAAATAAACCAAAATCACC-3′ | |
|
| (Forward) 5′-ACCAACCCAAAATAAACATCTCT-3′ | 115 |
| (chr7: 6730345-6730459) | (Reverse) 5′-biotin-AGAGGATTTTGATAAGGAGGTGT-3′ |
Reverse primers for real-time RT-PCR.
| Gene (GenBank accession) | Primer Sequences (from 5′ to 3′) | Product size (bp) |
|---|---|---|
|
| (Forward) 5′-GCACTAAGTCGATTGCACTGG-3′ | 163 |
| (NR_001592.1) | (Reverse) 5′-AGGTGCCTGCATCAAGGTGAC-3′ | |
|
| (Forward) 5′-GGATTAGCAGGCCCTGTCAGA-3′ | 166 |
| (NM_013670.3) | (Reverse) 5′-TGCCTACAGGTGGAGGTGGA-3′ | |
|
| (Forward) 5′-GTGGTCGGAAGCCCTGAGATAG-3′ | 112 |
| (NM_008590.2) | (Reverse) 5′-GGGCGATCACTCGATGGAA-3′ | |
|
| (Forward) 5′-AAGCCCTTGGGTGTGAGCA-3′ | 131 |
| (NM_008817.2) | (Reverse) 5′-CCACTTCGGCTCATGTCGTC-3′ | |
|
| (Forward) 5′-TGTGTCCGTCGTGGATCTGA-3′ | 150 |
| (NM_008084.3) | (Reverse) 5′-TTGCTGTTGAAGTCGCAGGAG-3′ |