| Literature DB >> 35169479 |
Calen P Ryan1, Meaghan J Jones2,3, Rachel D Edgar4, Nanette R Lee5, Michael S Kobor6,7, Thomas W McDade1,7,8, Christopher W Kuzawa1,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consistent with evolutionarily theorized costs of reproduction (CoR), reproductive history in women is associated with life expectancy and susceptibility to certain cancers, autoimmune disorders and metabolic disease. Immunological changes originating during reproduction may help explain some of these relationships.Entities:
Keywords: breastfeeding; epigenome; evolution; immunomethylomics; pregnancy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35169479 PMCID: PMC8841013 DOI: 10.1093/emph/eoac003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Med Public Health ISSN: 2050-6201
Top 10 genes differing between reproductive status groups scored using the mean sum of standardized −log10 P-values and absolute delta-β (group differences)
| Nulliparous-pregnant | Parous-pregnant | Nulliparous-breastfeeding | Parous-breastfeeding | Nulliparous-parous | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gene | Score | Gene | Score | Gene | Score | Gene | Score | Gene | Score |
|
| 10.836 |
| 6.972 |
| 5.700 |
| 5.741 |
| 5.23 |
|
| 8.916 |
| 6.331 |
| 5.561 |
| 5.044 |
| 4.98 |
|
| 7.738 |
| 5.938 |
| 5.455 |
| 4.725 |
| 4.92 |
|
| 6.679 |
| 5.859 |
| 5.162 |
| 4.533 |
| 4.48 |
|
| 6.514 |
| 5.623 |
| 5.050 |
| 4.094 |
| 4.09 |
|
| 5.859 |
| 5.324 |
| 5.024 |
| 4.053 |
| 4.03 |
|
| 5.828 |
| 5.068 |
| 4.966 |
| 3.888 |
| 4.03 |
|
| 5.717 |
| 4.948 |
| 4.736 |
| 3.719 |
| 3.86 |
|
| 5.688 |
| 4.946 |
| 4.658 |
| 3.708 |
| 3.81 |
|
| 5.513 |
| 4.904 |
| 4.526 |
| 3.671 |
| 3.70 |
Highest ranked genes are those with the smallest P-values and largest differences between groups. The first group forms the reference group, while the second group forms the comparison.
Overlap with genes containing differentially methylated CpGs during pregnancy in discovery (n = 21) and replication (n = 27) cohorts in Gruzieva et al. (2019).
Descriptive statistics of 392 young (20–22 years old) women of varying reproductive statuses participating in the Cebu Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey (CLHNS)
| Nulliparous ( | Pregnant ( | Breastfeeding ( | Parous ( | Total ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||||||
| Mean (SD) | 21.65 (0.35) | 21.66 (0.33) | 21.72 (0.32) | 21.67 (0.36) | 21.67 (0.35) | 0.636 |
| Range | 20.84–22.44 | 20.90–22.42 | 21.05–22.47 | 20.88–22.40 | 20.84–22.47 | |
| Gravidity | ||||||
| Mean (SD) | 0 (0) | 1.83 (1.07) | 1.73 (0.76) | 1.41 (0.69) | 0.9 (1.04) | <0.001 |
| Range | 0–0 | 1–5 | 1–4 | 1–4 | 0–5 | |
| SES-score | ||||||
| Mean (SD) | 0.05 (1.35) | −0.50 (1.31) | −0.38 (1.50) | −0.34 (1.41) | −0.20 (1.40) | 0.013 |
| Range | −2.75 to 3.95 | −2.75 to 3.19 | −3.27 to 3.81 | −3.10 to 3.90 | −3.27 to 3.95 | |
| Genetic PC-score 1 | ||||||
| Mean (SD) | 0.16 (9.01) | −0.42 (8.82) | 1.93 (7.55) | 0.10 (7.75) | 0.32 (8.50) | 0.423 |
| Range | −19.94 to 24.04 | −21.15 to 15.84 | −12.54 to 22.85 | −24.95 to 18.70 | −24.95 to 24.04 | |
| Genetic PC-score 2 | ||||||
| Mean (SD) | −0.20 (8.06) | 0.46 (7.93) | −0.30 (7.47) | 0.91 (6.94) | 0.15 (7.70) | 0.681 |
| Range | −20.48 to 20.33 | −17.07 to 17.50 | −15.41 to 17.56 | −17.92 to 19.17 | −20.48 to 20.33 | |
| Smoking status (1 = ‘yes’) | ||||||
| Number (%) | 3 (2%) | 0 | 0 | 7 (8%) | 10 (3%) | 0.007 |
More details on the derivation of the socioeconomic status composite score (SES-score) and the genetic principal components (genetic PC-scores 1 and 2) can be found in the supplementary material.
Linear model ANOVA.
Fisher’s exact test for count data.
Figure 1.Imputed immune cell composition among women of differing reproductive status
B lymphocytes (B-cells), CDT4 lymphocytes (CD4T), CD8T lymphocytes (CD8T), granulocytes (Gran), monocytes (Mono) and NK cells. Note: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
Figure 2.Volcano plots of differences in DNAm (delta-beta) by negative log10 P-value between women of differing reproductive status
Comparisons between nulliparous-pregnant (A), parous-pregnant (B), nulliparous-breastfeeding (C) and parous-breastfeeding (D) are shown, where nulliparous and parous form the reference groups. Sites that are differentially methylated after false discovery correction are colored. Y-axis scale varies by plot. The comparison between nulliparous and parous women did not differ significantly for any individual CpG sites after FDR correction, and is not shown.
Figure 3.Upset plot showing overlap of DMPs between women of differing reproductive status
Single points represent distinct DMPs, whereas connected points represent overlapping DMPs between groups. Differences are categorized as up or down methylated relative to the reference group (nulliparous or parous women), with numbers of DMPs for each category are displayed on the top of the graph.