| Literature DB >> 32554859 |
Wenbo Jiang1, Tianshu Han1, Wei Duan1, Qiuying Dong1, Wanying Hou1, Huanyu Wu1, Yue Wang1, Zehui Jiang1, Xinyi Pei1, Yingying Chen2, Ying Li1, Changhao Sun1.
Abstract
Prenatal malnutrition could promote renal dysfunction in adulthood, but it is unclear whether the detrimental effect could be transmitted to the next generation. We investigated whether famine exposure was associated with variation of estimated glomerular filtration rate(eGFR) in two generations and explored the mediation role of methylation alterations. The longitudinal analysis included 2909 participants from Suihua rural area. F1 and F2 generations were divided into non-famine and famine group based on their birth year and exposure status of their parents, respectively. The eGFR was calculated by using the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration equation. We applied mixed-effect models to investigate the association between famine and ΔeGFR and tested blood DNA methylomes in 46 families across two generations. The mediation-analysis models were utilized to examine the mediation effect of methylation alterations on the famine-ΔeGFR association.In mixed-effect models, famine exposure was associated with declined ΔeGFR level in F1(β:-8.32;95%CI:-11.51,-5.12) and in F2(β:-6.11;95%CI:-11.88, -0.43). Methylation850K BeadChip data showed only 19 of 961 F1 differentially methylated sites showed concordant alterations in F2. The mediation-analysis results showed methylation alterations on AGTR1 and PRKCA might mediate the famine-ΔeGFR association. Overall, prenatal famine exposure may have long-term effects on eGFR decline across consecutive generations which might be partly mediated by methylation alterations on AGTR1 and PRKCA.Entities:
Keywords: DNA methylation; famine exposure; prenatal; transgenerational
Year: 2020 PMID: 32554859 PMCID: PMC7343514 DOI: 10.18632/aging.103397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Characteristics of the study variables at baseline and follow-up in Suihua cohort.
| Baseline | ||||||
| Age (years) | 52.7 (2.6) | 53.1 (4.6) | <0.001 | 26.2 (5.2) | 26.4 (4.5) | 0.522 |
| Men [n(%)] | 671 (69.5) | 569(62.1) | 0.325 | 207 (58.6) | 389 (57.6) | 0.237 |
| Energy(kcal/d) | 2445 (1027) | 2468 (1003) | 0.512 | 2537 (845) | 2501 (824) | 0.431 |
| Over high school level [n(%)] | 146 (15.1) | 129 (14.1) | 0.203 | 42 (11.9) | 74 (11.0) | 0.523 |
| Low working strength [n(%)] | 279 (28.9) | 233 (25.4) | 0.032 | 98(27.8) | 162 (24.0) | 0.411 |
| Smoker [n(%)] | 341 (35.3) | 321 (35.0) | 0.851 | 128 (36.3) | 226 (33.5) | 0.151 |
| Drinker [n(%)] | 354 (36.7) | 304 (33.2) | 0.042 | 105 (29.7) | 226 (33.5) | 0.362 |
| Hypertensive [n(%)] | 459 (47.6) | 495 (54.0) | 0.012 | 76 (21.5) | 171 (25.3) | 0.091 |
| Sport [n(%)] | 279 (28.9) | 244 (26.6) | 0.326 | 85 (24.1) | 176 (26.1) | 0.332 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.4 (3.1) | 25.1 (3.2) | 0.439 | 24.1 (4.2) | 25.5 (3.2) | 0.318 |
| FPG (mmol/L) | 4.5 (1.1) | 4.8 (1.1) | 0.021 | 4.3 (0.5) | 4.5 (0.6) | 0.024 |
| 2-hPG (mmol/L) | 6.0 (1.8) | 6.4 (2.6) | 0.016 | 5.1 (1.2) | 5.5 (1.3) | 0.028 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 137.4 (23.3) | 142.1 (21.2) | 0.021 | 124.6 (16.0) | 128.8 (14.1) | 0.020 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 80.3 (13.8) | 83.1 (16.1) | 0.380 | 77.4 (11.0) | 78.0 (10.6) | 0.241 |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 5.4 (1.6) | 5.8 (1.5) | 0.022 | 4.9 (1.3) | 5.1 (1.3) | 0.029 |
| UA (μmol/L) | 284.4 (84.4) | 294.9 (85.0) | 0.022 | 280.1 (87.2) | 284.3 (85.3) | 0.853 |
| CRE (mg/dL) | 0.66 (0.14) | 0.69 (0.18) | 0.014 | 0.67 (0.14) | 0.69 (0.15) | 0.033 |
| eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m2) | 114.5 (30.3) | 100.3 (24.5) | <0.001 | 130.2 (36.3) | 115.0 (29.9) | 0.007 |
| Follow-up | ||||||
| SBP (mmHg) | 139.2 (21.1) | 145.0 (22.3) | <0.001 | 126.9 (20.4) | 132.5 (17.1) | 0.014 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 82.2 (12.0) | 86.0 (17.7) | 0.011 | 77.6 (11.1) | 80.2 (13.9) | 0.332 |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 5.7 (1.4) | 6.2 (1.5) | <0.01 | 5.1 (1.4) | 5.4 (1.5) | 0.017 |
| UA (μmol/L) | 288.4 (80.9) | 300.4 (85.8) | <0.01 | 282.1 (82.5) | 284.3 (85.9) | 0.058 |
| CRE (mg/dL) | 0.67 (0.11) | 0.71 (0.14) | <0.01 | 0.69 (0.17) | 0.73 (0.15) | 0.003 |
| eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m2) | 109.5 (32.8) | 90.2 (28.6) | <0.001 | 118.2 (35.6) | 100.9 (38.1) | 0.001 |
Continuous variables are presented as the mean (SD). Generalized linear mixed models and χ2 test were used to probe for differences in continuous and dichotomous variables. eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate. BMI, Body mass index. FPG, Fast plasma glucose. 2-hPG, 2-hour postprandial glucose. SBP, Systolic blood pressure. DBP, Diastolic blood pressure. BUN, blood urea nitrogen. UA, Uric Acid. CRE, serum creatinine.
The risk of eGFR<60 for parental and offspring in adulthood by famine exposure status.
| Rate, % | 12.76 | 23.21 | 14.70 | 16.74 |
| OR (95% CI) | ||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.66 (1.16, 2.77) | 1.00 | 1.17 (0.83, 1.66) |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 1.80 (1.10, 3.36) | 1.00 | 1.26 (0.90, 1.75) |
In the F1 generation, ORs (95% CIs) were calculated by the generalized mixed linear model with famine exposure (yes or no) as the fixed factor and family number as the random factor. Model 1 was adjusted for parental age and sex. Model 2 was adjusted as for Model 1 and for education, smoking, drinking, SBP, 2-hPG, working strength, daily energy intake, sport and BMI. In the F2 generation, ORs (95% CIs) were calculated by the generalized mixed linear model with parental famine exposure (yes or no) as the fixed factor and family number as the random factor. Model 1 was adjusted for offspring age and sex. Model 2 was adjusted as for Model 1 and for education, smoking, drinking, SBP, 2-hPG, working strength, daily energy intake, sport and BMI.
Parental and offspring ΔeGFR in adulthood by famine exposure status.
| Model1 | -9.95 (-12.77, -7.13) | <0.001 | -6.15 (-11.83, -0.47) | 0.035 |
| Model2 | -8.32 (-11.51, -5.12) | <0.001 | -6.11 (-11.88, -0.43) | 0.034 |
In the F1 generation, coefficients and their 95% CIs were calculated by the mixed linear model with famine exposure (yes or no) as the fixed factor and family number as the random factor. Model 1 was adjusted for parental age and sex. Model 2 was adjusted as for Model 1 and for education, smoking, drinking, SBP, 2-hPG, working strength, daily energy intake, sport and BMI. In the F2 generation, coefficients and their 95% CIs were calculated by the mixed linear model with parental famine exposure (yes or no) as the fixed factor and family number as the random factor. Model 1 was adjusted for offspring age and sex. Model 2 was adjusted as for Model 1 and for education, smoking, drinking, SBP, 2-hPG, working strength, daily energy intake, sport and BMI.
Figure 1Genome-wide DNA methylation changes in the participants prenatally exposed to famine. Circos plot depicting the entire autosomal complement. Each dot marks the location of the Illumina Methylation EPIC Bead probe along the genome. The dots on the innermost black ring and the next outermost black circle represent the CPG sites in the F1 generation and F2 generation, respectively. Green and red dots represent significantly hypo-methylated and hyper-methylated differentially methylated sites. The innermost black ring with vertical lines represents autosome ideograms annotated with the chromosomal number.
Figure 2Association between epigenetic dysregulation in parental blood and ΔeGFR after fetal malnutrition. Correlation graphs of (y axis) ΔeGFR and (x axis) β values showing association between DNA methylation on cg09762515 (A), cg13528513 (B), cg17160506 (C), cg20906621 (D)and ΔeGFR in F1 generation.
Figure 3Association between epigenetic dysregulation in offspring blood and ΔeGFR after fetal malnutrition. Correlation graphs of (y axis) ΔeGFR and (x axis) β values showing association between DNA methylation on cg13528513 (A), cg13598358 (B), cg17160506 (C), cg20906621 (D), cg21532512 (E), cg23008606 (F) and ΔeGFR in F2 generation.
Associations between prenatal famine exposure and ΔeGFR in adulthood with the mediation of DNA methylation in the F1 generation.
| Famine exposure | cg13528513 | ΔeGFR | -0.26 (-0.46 to -0.06) | 23.20 | 0.16 | 0.112 |
| Famine exposure | cg20906621 | ΔeGFR | -0.30 (-0.52 to -0.08) | 26.52 | 0.16 | 0.112 |
| Famine exposure | cg17160506 | ΔeGFR | -0.22 (-0.41 to -0.02) | 21.80 | 0.09 | 0.055 |
The predictor is F1 prenatal exposure to famine, the mediator is F1 DNA methylation, and the outcome is F1 ΔeGFR. R^2*, the proportion of residual variances. R^2~, the proportion of original variances that were explained by the omitted confounding
Associations between F1 prenatal famine exposure and F2 DNA methylation with the mediation of F1 DNA methylation.
| Paternal exposure | cg13528513 | cg13528513 | -0.016 (-0.030 to -0.003) | 28.66 | 0.16 | 0.112 |
| Paternal exposure | cg20906621 | cg20906621 | -0.013 (-0.025 to -0.001) | 25.38 | 0.04 | 0.033 |
| Paternal exposure | cg17160506 | cg17160506 | -0.018 (-0.028 to -0.008) | 30.98 | 0.09 | 0.067 |
| Maternal exposure | cg13528513 | cg13528513 | -0.020 (-0.032 to -0.009) | 29.31 | 0.09 | 0.066 |
| Maternal exposure | cg20906621 | cg20906621 | -0.031 (-0.048 to -0.014) | 32.65 | 0.16 | 0.112 |
| Maternal exposure | cg17160506 | cg17160506 | -0.023 (-0.030 to -0.015) | 29.97 | 0.09 | 0.067 |
The predictor is F1 prenatal exposure to famine, the mediator is F1 DNA methylation, and the outcome is F1 ΔeGFR. R^2*, the proportion of residual variances. R^2~, the proportion of original variances that were explained by the omitted confounding
Associations between F1 parental prenatal famine exposure and F2 ΔeGFR in adulthood with the mediation of F2 DNA methylation.
| Paternal exposure | cg13528513 | ΔeGFR | -0.05 (-0.09 to -0.02) | 8.77 | 0.16 | 0.112 |
| Paternal exposure | cg20906621 | ΔeGFR | -0.13 (-0.23 to -0.03) | 11.47 | 0.16 | 0.112 |
| Paternal exposure | cg17160506 | ΔeGFR | -0.10 (-0.17 to -0.03) | 8.60 | 0.09 | 0.066 |
| Maternal exposure | cg13528513 | ΔeGFR | -0.11 (-0.17 to -0.05) | 8.13 | 0.09 | 0.067 |
| Maternal exposure | cg20906621 | ΔeGFR | -0.09 (-0.16 to -0.01) | 10.10 | 0.09 | 0.067 |
| Maternal exposure | cg17160506 | ΔeGFR | -0.06 (-0.09 to -0.03) | 9.10 | 0.09 | 0.066 |
The predictor is F1 prenatal exposure to famine, the mediator is F1 DNA methylation, and the outcome is F1 ΔeGFR. R^2*, the proportion of residual variances. R^2~, the proportion of original variances that were explained by the omitted confounding