| Literature DB >> 32541825 |
Matt J Silver1, Jessica L Buxton2,3, Kim Maasen4,5,6, Philip T James7, Andrew M Prentice5, Sophie E Moore5,8, Caroline H Fall9, Giriraj R Chandak10, Modupeh Betts5,11.
Abstract
Early life exposures are important predictors of adult disease risk. Although the underlying mechanisms are largely unknown, telomere maintenance may be involved. This study investigated the relationship between seasonal differences in parental exposures at time of conception and leukocyte telomere length (LTL) in their offspring. LTL was measured in two cohorts of children aged 2 yrs (N = 487) and 7-9 yrs (N = 218). The association between date of conception and LTL was examined using Fourier regression models, adjusted for age, sex, leukocyte cell composition, and other potential confounders. We observed an effect of season in the older children in all models [likelihood ratio test (LRT) χ²2 = 7.1, p = 0.03; fully adjusted model]. LTL was greatest in children conceived in September (in the rainy season), and smallest in those conceived in March (in the dry season), with an effect size (LTL peak-nadir) of 0.60 z-scores. No effect of season was evident in the younger children (LRT χ²2 = 0.87, p = 0.65). The different results obtained for the two cohorts may reflect a delayed effect of season of conception on postnatal telomere maintenance. Alternatively, they may be explained by unmeasured differences in early life exposures, or the increased telomere attrition rate during infancy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32541825 PMCID: PMC7295801 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-66729-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
General characteristics of the ENID and EMPHASIS study participants.
| ENID (N = 487) | EMPHASIS (N = 218) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years)a | 2.0 (2.0-2.0) | 9.0 (8.6-9.2) |
| Sex (% male) | 50 | 55 |
| Maternal folate concentration (nmol/L)a | ||
| Method A (Architect system) | 12.8 (9.8-16.7) | — |
| Method B (EDTA plasma folate) | 13.2 (9.3–18.9) | — |
| Maternal BMIa | 20.4 (19.0–22.3) | 20.8 (19.3–22.9) |
| Child birthweight (grams) b | 3023 ± 402 | 3069 ± 417 |
| Maternal intervention armc | ||
| FeFol | 120 (25) | — |
| MMN | 130 (27) | — |
| PE | 118 (24) | — |
| PE + MMN | 119 (24) | — |
| UNIMMAP | — | 102 (47) |
| Placebo | — | 116 (53) |
| Infant intervention arm, n (%) | ||
| LNSc | 247 (51) | — |
| + MMN | 240 (49) | — |
aMedian (IQR).
bMean ± SD.
cn (%).
BMI, Body Mass Index, FeFol, iron and folic acid; MMN, multiple micronutrient; PE, protein energy; LNS, lipid-based nutritional supplement; UNIMMAP, UNICEF/WHO/United Nations University Multiple Micronutrient Preparation.
ENID cohort. Association between LTL (T/S mean z-score) and seasonality using Fourier regression models.
| N | LRT χ2 (2 df) | LRT p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 – crude | 487 | 4.24 | 0.12 |
| Model 2 – adjusted for age and sex | 487 | 4.24 | 0.11 |
| Model 3 – adjusted for age, sex and estimated white cell composition | 204 | 0.87 | 0.65 |
| Model 4 – adjusted for age, sex and maternal BMI | 345 | 5.48 | 0.06 |
| Model 5 – adjusted for age + sex + birthweight | 395 | 5.86 | 0.05 |
aIn each case, model fit is assessed by comparing the full and baseline models using a likelihood ratio test (LRT). LRT confirmed that two/three pairs of Fourier terms did not improve model fit. BMI, Body Mass Index.
Figure 1ENID cohort. Modelled associations between LTL (Boxcox transformed T/S mean z-score) and seasonality using Fourier regression. Grey shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals. (a) Model 1 - crude model; (b) Model 2 - adjusted for age and sex; (c) Model 3 - adjusted for age, sex and estimated cell composition; (d) Model 4 - adjusted for age, sex and maternal BMI; (e) Model 5 - adjusted for age, sex and birthweight.
EMPHASIS cohort. Association between LTL (T/S mean z-score) and seasonality.
| N | LRT χ2 (2 df) | LRT p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 – crude | 218 | 8.27 | |
| Model 2 – adjusted for age and sex | 218 | 7.89 | |
| Model 3 – adjusted for age, sex and estimated white cell composition | 214 | 7.10 | |
| Model 4 – adjusted for age, sex and maternal BMI | 218 | 7.96 | |
| Model 5 – adjusted for age + sex + birthweight | 200 | 6.51 |
aIn each case, model fit is assessed by comparing the full and baseline models using a likelihood ratio test (LRT). LRT confirmed that two/three pairs of Fourier terms did not improve model fit. BMI, Body Mass Index.
Figure 2EMPHASIS cohort. Modelled associations between LTL (T/S mean z-score) and seasonality using Fourier regression. Grey shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals. (a) Model 1 - crude model; (b) Model 2 - adjusted for age and sex; (c) Model 3 - adjusted for age, sex and estimated cell composition; (d) Model 4 - adjusted for age, sex and maternal BMI; (e) Model 5 - adjusted for age, sex and birthweight.
Figure 3Date of conception versus date of collection ENID and EMPHASIS cohorts. These are correlated for the ENID cohort since the majority of samples are collected when the children are 2 years old. (J-D, Jan-Dec).