| Literature DB >> 34769097 |
Carl R Dahlen1, Pawel P Borowicz1, Alison K Ward1, Joel S Caton1, Marta Czernik2, Luca Palazzese3, Pasqualino Loi2, Lawrence P Reynolds1.
Abstract
Assisted reproductive techniques (ART) and parental nutritional status have profound effects on embryonic/fetal and placental development, which are probably mediated via "programming" of gene expression, as reflected by changes in their epigenetic landscape. Such epigenetic changes may underlie programming of growth, development, and function of fetal organs later in pregnancy and the offspring postnatally, and potentially lead to long-term changes in organ structure and function in the offspring as adults. This latter concept has been termed developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD), or simply developmental programming, which has emerged as a major health issue in animals and humans because it is associated with an increased risk of non-communicable diseases in the offspring, including metabolic, behavioral, and reproductive dysfunction. In this review, we will briefly introduce the concept of developmental programming and its relationship to epigenetics. We will then discuss evidence that ART and periconceptual maternal and paternal nutrition may lead to epigenetic alterations very early in pregnancy, and how each pregnancy experiences developmental programming based on signals received by and from the dam. Lastly, we will discuss current research on strategies designed to overcome or minimize the negative consequences or, conversely, to maximize the positive aspects of developmental programming.Entities:
Keywords: assisted reproductive techniques; developmental programming; early pregnancy; epigenetics; maternal nutrition; reproductive function
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34769097 PMCID: PMC8583791 DOI: 10.3390/ijms222111668
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) using sperm from lambs born to Control, Undernourished or Folic acid-Supplemented ewes.
| Nutritional Treatment | Oocytes (n) | 2-Cell Stage Embryos (%) | Blastocysts (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 178 | 56/178 (31.5) | 26/178 (14.6) |
| Undernourished | 186 | 44/186 (23.6) b | 10/186 (5.4) a,b |
| Folic acid-supplemented | 118 | 46/118 (39) | 16/118 (13.5) |
ap < 0.005 between Undernourished and Control; b p < 0.05 between Undernourished and Folic acid-supplemented; Fisher’s exact test. Table from [22].
Figure 1Comparison of (A) glucose concentrations in allantoic and amniotic fluid, (B) glutamine concentrations in allantoic and amniotic fluid, (C) methionine concentrations in allantoic fluid, and (D) homocysteine concentrations in maternal serum of heifers receiving control or restricted dietary treatment from the day of mating (d 0) until d 50 of gestation. Treatments provided for 0.5 kg of gain/hd daily vs. −0.08 kg of gain/hd daily between d 0 and d 50 of gestation for control vs. restricted heifers, respectively. Figure from Caton et al. [1]. a,b and y,z for (A,B) bars significantly different, with p-value as indicated; a,b for (C,D), bars differ significantly (p < 0.10).