| Literature DB >> 29392408 |
Yue Hu1, Liang Hu2, Desheng Gong1, Hanlin Lu1, Yue Xuan2, Ru Wang2, Daiwen Chen2, Keying Zhang2, Fei Gao3, Lianqiang Che4.
Abstract
Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) may elicit a series of postnatal body developmental and metabolic diseases due to their impaired growth and development in the mammalian embryo/fetus during pregnancy. In the present study, we hypothesized that IUGR may lead to abnormally regulated DNA methylation in the intestine, causing intestinal dysfunctions. We applied reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) technology to study the jejunum tissues from four newborn IUGR piglets and their normal body weight (NBW) littermates. The results revealed extensively regional DNA methylation changes between IUGR/NBW pairs from different gilts, affecting dozens of genes. Hiseq-based bisulfite sequencing PCR (Hiseq-BSP) was used for validations of 19 genes with epigenetic abnormality, confirming three genes (AIFM1, MTMR1, and TWIST2) in extra samples. Furthermore, integrated analysis of these 19 genes with proteome data indicated that there were three main genes (BCAP31, IRAK1, and AIFM1) interacting with important immunity- or metabolism-related proteins, which could explain the potential intestinal dysfunctions of IUGR piglets. We conclude that IUGR can lead to disparate DNA methylation in the intestine and these changes may affect several important biological processes such as cell apoptosis, cell differentiation, and immunity, which provides more clues linking IUGR and its long-term complications.Entities:
Keywords: Epigenetics; Fetal growth; Intestinal function; Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR)
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29392408 PMCID: PMC6061055 DOI: 10.1007/s00438-018-1422-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Genet Genomics ISSN: 1617-4623 Impact factor: 3.291
Fig. 1Physiological index of IUGR models compared to NBW littermates and the global methylation levels of all the IUGR and NBW samples. (a) Body weight and organ index in IUGR and NBW littermate piglets. (b) Global CpG methylation levels of all the eight IUGR and NBW piglets. The methylation levels of all CpGs patterns in the eight piglets were calculated and categorized into five color-coded states. CpG coverage (y-axis) shows the proportion of CpGs covered with different methylation levels. (c) Clustering based on methylation of CpGs in the whole genome. The “pvclust” tree diagram clustering is based on CpGs methylation in the whole genome of all the eight samples, and it shows that the methylation levels are diverse among the 4 pairs of IUGR and NBW piglets from different gilts
Plasma concentrations of amino acids and urea in IUGR and NBW littermate piglets
| IUGR | NBW | |
|---|---|---|
| Sulfur metabolism amino acids, µM | ||
| Methionine | 19.33 ± 6.27 | 8.96 ± 1.91 |
| Taurine | 18.61 ± 1.24 | 24.55 ± 3.79 |
| Serine | 51.01 ± 7.38 | 51.97 ± 9.62 |
| Glycine | 88.60 ± 6.45 | 98.40 ± 9.40 |
| Cystathionine | 9.50 ± 1.31 | 7.89 ± 0.74 |
| Cysteine | 20.87 ± 3.31 | 13.59 ± 3.76 |
| Indispensable amino acids, µM | ||
| Arginine | 55.87 ± 11.93 | 28.85 ± 6.80 |
| Histidine | 20.19 ± 4.52 | 15.43 ± 1.73 |
| Isoleucine | 26.22 ± 4.40 | 23.86 ± 2.92 |
| Leucine | 57.26 ± 9.26a | 31.34 ± 4.61 |
| Lysine | 101.44 ± 20.85 | 54.59 ± 11. 90 |
| Phenylalanine | 36.56 ± 3.80 | 28.05 ± 6.00 |
| Threonine | 42.06 ± 6.93 | 41.49 ± 9.89 |
| Dispensable amino acids, µM | ||
| Alanine | 82.27 ± 16.52 | 108.17 ± 13.80 |
| Aspartate | 4.71 ± 1.28 | 4.57 ± 1.13 |
| Citrulline | 44.71 ± 7.46 | 38.06 ± 2.53 |
| Glutamate | 27.35 ± 6.37 | 25.36 ± 2.64 |
| Hydroxyproline | 11.36 ± 2.01 | 21.36 ± 4.37 |
| Ornithine | 32.11 ± 5.61 | 25.05 ± 4.26 |
| Proline | 96.80 ± 6.62 | 106.56 ± 9.00 |
| Tyrosine | 46.98 ± 8.42 | 52.67 ± 9.57 |
| Urea, µM | 651.47 ± 183.08a | 340.13 ± 83.69 |
Results are mean ± SEM (n = 4 per group)
aP value < 0.05 (within a row, values with different superscript letters mean significant differences.)
Fig. 2Summary of promoter-DMRs induced by IUGR. (a) Smaller IUGR piglets represent more changes in DNA methylation. The tendency of body weight (BW) ratio, promoter-DMRs and promoter-DMRs related genes are presented by line chart in three kinds of fold lines. The fold lines reflect that the lowest BW ratio is corresponding to the largest amount of DMRs. (b) Venn diagram of promoter-DMRs related genes in the four pairs of IUGR and NBW piglets. It shows the result of the cross-matching genes with DMRs overlapping with CpG island promoters with respect to the IUGR and NBW pairs. (c) Pie chart represents the average distributions of DMRs from the IUGR and NBW pair 1~4 in all the chromosomes. It is indicated that most of the DMRs are located on chromosome X. (d) Enrichment analysis result of biological processes for the promoter-DMR genes in the 4 pairs. The x-axis indicates the number of genes, and the y-axis indicates different biological processes. The bar chart shows the different number of genes involved biological processes from the four pairs of IUGR and NBW piglets
Fig. 3Validation of DMR related genes (DMRGs) by Hiseq-BSP. This is combined with Hiseq-BSP in another 6 pairs of IUGR and NBW piglets (pair 5~10) for methylation validation of the selected 19 DMRGs according to RRBS analysis result. Three genes (AIFM1, MTMR1, and TWIST2) were successfully validated and showed the same methylation level and overlapped regions of DMR with the RRBS analysis results. TWIST2 gene was hypermethylated in its promoter (left) in IUGR piglets, while the AIFM1 and MTMR1genes were hypomethylated in their promoter in IUGR piglets
Fig. 4Correlation networks of DMRGs and the IUGR related proteins. Association analysis among DMRGs and the IUGR related proteins is shown in this network. The yellow circles present DMRGs and the purple ones are proteins. Lines with different colors indicate various kinds of relationship between these DMRGs and these proteins. It was clear that BCAP31 had direct interaction with ACTG1, while IRAK1 showed physical associations with HSPA8 and AIFM1 separately