Advertisement

Loss of methylation of H19-imprinted gene derived from assisted reproductive technologies can be mitigated by cleavage-stage embryo transfer in mice

  • Shuqiang Chen
  • Meizi Zhang
  • Li Li
  • Ming Wang
  • Yongqian Shi
  • Hengde Zhang
  • Bin Kang
  • Na TangEmail author
  • Bo LiEmail author
Embryo Biology
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Studies on rodents have shown that assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are associated with perturbation of genomic imprinting in blastocyst-stage embryos. However, the vulnerable developmental window for ART influence on the genomic imprinting of embryos is still undetermined. The purpose of this study was to establish the specific embryonic development stage at which the loss of methylation of H19 imprinting control regions (ICRs) was caused by ART occurrence. Additionally, we explored protocols to safeguard against possible negative impacts of ART on embryo H19 imprinting.

Methods

Mouse embryos were generated under four different experimental conditions, divided into four groups: control, in vitro culture (IVC), in vitro fertilization (IVF), and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). The methylation levels of H19 ICR of the grouped or individual embryos were analyzed by bisulfite-sequencing PCR.

Results

Our data showed that the loss of methylation of H19 ICR in mouse blastocysts was inflicted to a similar extent by IVC, IVF, and ICSI. Specifically, we observed a significant loss of methylation of H19 ICR between the mouse 8-cell and morula stages. In addition, we revealed that the transfer of mouse embryos generated by ARTs in the uterus at the 8-cell stage induced the occurrence of methylation patterns in the blastocysts closer to the in vivo ones.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that the loss of methylation of H19 ICR caused by ARTs occurs between the 8-cell and the morula stages, and the transfer of cleavage embryos to the uterus mitigates the loss methylation of H19 derived by mice ARTs.

Keywords

Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) Genomic imprinting Imprinting control regions (ICRs) Loss of methylation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the valuable comments from other members of our laboratory.

Funding information

This study was supported by the grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31640056, 31801250), Shaanxi Natural Science Foundation of China (2016JM8052), Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi, China (2018SF-258), and Scientific and Technical Innovatory Project of Tangdu Hospital (2017LCYJ001).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

The present study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Animal and Medicine of the Tangdu Hospital of The Fourth Military Medical University (Approval identification: TDLL-2018-03-47) and was conducted in accordance with the guidelines from the Committee on the Use of Live Animals in Teaching and Research of the Tangdu Hospital of The Fourth Military Medical University.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10815_2019_1575_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Peters J. The role of genomic imprinting in biology and disease: an expanding view. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15(8):517–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferguson-Smith AC. Genomic imprinting: the emergence of an epigenetic paradigm. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(8):565–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elhamamsy AR. Role of DNA methylation in imprinting disorders: an updated review. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(5):549–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hamada H, Okae H, Toh H, Chiba H, Hiura H, Shirane K, et al. Allele-specific methylome and transcriptome analysis reveals widespread imprinting in the human placenta. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;99(5):1045–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jurkiewicz D, Kugaudo M, Skorka A, Smigiel R, Smyk M, Ciara E, et al. A novel IGF2/H19 domain triplication in the 11p15.5 imprinting region causing either Beckwith-Wiedemann or Silver-Russell syndrome in a single family. Am J Med Genet A. 2017;173(1):72–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunter P. The long-term health risks of ART: epidemiological data and research on animals indicate that in vitro fertilization might create health problems later in life. EMBO Rep. 2017;18(7):1061–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Montfoort AP, Hanssen LL, de Sutter P, Viville S, Geraedts JP, de Boer P. Assisted reproduction treatment and epigenetic inheritance. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(2):171–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palomba S, Homburg R, Santagni S, La Sala GB, Orvieto R. Risk of adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after high technology infertility treatment: a comprehensive systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14(1):76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luke B. Pregnancy and birth outcomes in couples with infertility with and without assisted reproductive technology: with an emphasis on US population-based studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):270–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El Hajj N, Haertle L, Dittrich M, Denk S, Lehnen H, Hahn T, et al. DNA methylation signatures in cord blood of ICSI children. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(8):1761–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Litzky JF, Deyssenroth MA, Everson TM, Armstrong DA, Lambertini L, Chen J, et al. Placental imprinting variation associated with assisted reproductive technologies and subfertility. Epigenetics. 2017;12(8):653–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drobna Z, Henriksen AD, Wolstenholme JT, Montiel C, Lambeth PS, Shang S, et al. Transgenerational effects of bisphenol A on gene expression and DNA methylation of imprinted genes in brain. Endocrinology. 2018;159(1):132–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menezo Y, Dale B, Elder K. The negative impact of the environment on methylation/epigenetic marking in gametes and embryos: a plea for action to protect the fertility of future generations. Mol Reprod Dev. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.23116.
  14. 14.
    Market-Velker BA, Fernandes AD, Mann MR. Side-by-side comparison of five commercial media systems in a mouse model: suboptimal in vitro culture interferes with imprint maintenance. Biol Reprod. 2010;83(6):938–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Velker BAM, Denomme MM, Krafty RT, Mann MRW. Maintenance of Mest imprinted methylation in blastocyst-stage mouse embryos is less stable than other imprinted loci following superovulation or embryo culture. Environ Epigenet. 2017;3(3):dvx015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Market Velker BA, Denomme MM, Mann MR. Loss of genomic imprinting in mouse embryos with fast rates of preimplantation development in culture. Biol Reprod. 2012;86(5):143 1-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Waal E, Mak W, Calhoun S, Stein P, Ord T, Krapp C, et al. In vitro culture increases the frequency of stochastic epigenetic errors at imprinted genes in placental tissues from mouse concepti produced through assisted reproductive technologies. Biol Reprod. 2014;90(2):22.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen X, Huang Y, Huang H, Guan Y, Li M, Jiang X, et al. Effects of superovulation, in vitro fertilization, and oocyte in vitro maturation on imprinted gene Grb10 in mouse blastocysts. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(6):1219–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Waal E, Yamazaki Y, Ingale P, Bartolomei M, Yanagimachi R, McCarrey JR. Primary epimutations introduced during intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are corrected by germline-specific epigenetic reprogramming. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(11):4163–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giritharan G, Li MW, Di Sebastiano F, Esteban FJ, Horcajadas JA, Lloyd KC, et al. Effect of ICSI on gene expression and development of mouse preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(12):3012–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen S, Sun FZ, Huang X, Wang X, Tang N, Zhu B, et al. Assisted reproduction causes placental maldevelopment and dysfunction linked to reduced fetal weight in mice. Sci Rep. 2015;5:10596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yoshida N, Perry AC. Piezo-actuated mouse intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Nat Protoc. 2007;2(2):296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mann MR, Lee SS, Doherty AS, Verona RI, Nolen LD, Schultz RM, et al. Selective loss of imprinting in the placenta following preimplantation development in culture. Development. 2004;131(15):3727–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fauque P, Jouannet P, Lesaffre C, Ripoche MA, Dandolo L, Vaiman D, et al. Assisted reproductive technology affects developmental kinetics, H19 imprinting control region methylation and H19 gene expression in individual mouse embryos. BMC Dev Biol. 2007;7:116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rivera RM, Stein P, Weaver JR, Mager J, Schultz RM, Bartolomei MS. Manipulations of mouse embryos prior to implantation result in aberrant expression of imprinted genes on day 9.5 of development. Hum Mol Genet. 2008;17(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O'Doherty AM, McGettigan P, Irwin RE, Magee DA, Gagne D, Fournier E, et al. Intragenic sequences in the trophectoderm harbour the greatest proportion of methylation errors in day 17 bovine conceptuses generated using assisted reproductive technologies. BMC Genomics. 2018;19(1):438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Santos F, Hendrich B, Reik W, Dean W. Dynamic reprogramming of DNA methylation in the early mouse embryo. Dev Biol. 2002;241(1):172–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hanna CW, Demond H, Kelsey G. Epigenetic regulation in development: is the mouse a good model for the human? Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24(5):556–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    El Hajj N, Trapphoff T, Linke M, May A, Hansmann T, Kuhtz J, et al. Limiting dilution bisulfite (pyro)sequencing reveals parent-specific methylation patterns in single early mouse embryos and bovine oocytes. Epigenetics. 2011;6(10):1176–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Denomme MM, Zhang L, Mann MR. Embryonic imprinting perturbations do not originate from superovulation-induced defects in DNA methylation acquisition. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(3):734–8 e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fischer B, Bavister BD. Oxygen tension in the oviduct and uterus of rhesus monkeys, hamsters and rabbits. J Reprod Fertil. 1993;99(2):673–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gardner DK. The impact of physiological oxygen during culture, and vitrification for cryopreservation, on the outcome of extended culture in human IVF. Reprod BioMed Online. 2016;32(2):137–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kelley RL, Gardner DK. Individual culture and atmospheric oxygen during culture affect mouse preimplantation embryo metabolism and post-implantation development. Reprod BioMed Online. 2019;39(1):3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chason RJ, Csokmay J, Segars JH, DeCherney AH, Armant DR. Environmental and epigenetic effects upon preimplantation embryo metabolism and development. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2011;22(10):412–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Belli M, Zhang L, Liu X, Donjacour A, Ruggeri E, Palmerini MG, et al. Oxygen concentration alters mitochondrial structure and function in in vitro fertilized preimplantation mouse embryos. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(4):601–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goto Y, Noda Y, Mori T, Nakano M. Increased generation of reactive oxygen species in embryos cultured in vitro. Free Radic Biol Med. 1993;15(1):69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bomfim MM, Andrade GM, Del Collado M, Sangalli JR, Fontes PK, Nogueira MFG, et al. Antioxidant responses and deregulation of epigenetic writers and erasers link oxidative stress and DNA methylation in bovine blastocysts. Mol Reprod Dev. 2017;84(12):1296–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rinaudo PF, Giritharan G, Talbi S, Dobson AT, Schultz RM. Effects of oxygen tension on gene expression in preimplantation mouse embryos. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(4 Suppl):1252–65 65 e1–36.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Li W, Goossens K, Van Poucke M, Forier K, Braeckmans K, Van Soom A, et al. High oxygen tension increases global methylation in bovine 4-cell embryos and blastocysts but does not affect general retrotransposon expression. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2016;28(7):948–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    de Waal E, Vrooman LA, Fischer E, Ord T, Mainigi MA, Coutifaris C, et al. The cumulative effect of assisted reproduction procedures on placental development and epigenetic perturbations in a mouse model. Hum Mol Genet. 2015;24(24):6975–85.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Coticchio G, Lagalla C, Sturmey R, Pennetta F, Borini A. The enigmatic morula: mechanisms of development, cell fate determination, self-correction and implications for ART. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25:422–38.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Leese HJ. Metabolism of the preimplantation embryo: 40 years on. Reproduction. 2012;143(4):417–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Harvey AJ. Mitochondria in early development: linking the microenvironment, metabolism and the epigenome. Reproduction. 2019;157(5):R159–R79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Leese HJ. Quiet please, do not disturb: a hypothesis of embryo metabolism and viability. BioEssays. 2002;24(9):845–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scott R 3rd, Zhang M, Seli E. Metabolism of the oocyte and the preimplantation embryo: implications for assisted reproduction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30(3):163–70.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhang J, Zhao J, Dahan P, Lu V, Zhang C, Li H, et al. Metabolism in pluripotent stem cells and early mammalian development. Cell Metab. 2018;27(2):332–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Canovas S, Ivanova E, Romar R, Garcia-Martinez S, Soriano-Ubeda C, Garcia-Vazquez FA, et al. DNA methylation and gene expression changes derived from assisted reproductive technologies can be decreased by reproductive fluids. eLife. 2017;6.  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23670.
  48. 48.
    White CR, Denomme MM, Tekpetey FR, Feyles V, Power SG, Mann MR. High frequency of imprinted methylation errors in human preimplantation embryos. Sci Rep. 2015;5:17311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Khoueiry R, Ibala-Romdhane S, Al-Khtib M, Blachere T, Lornage J, Guerin JF, et al. Abnormal methylation of KCNQ1OT1 and differential methylation of H19 imprinting control regions in human ICSI embryos. Zygote. 2013;21(2):129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ibala-Romdhane S, Al-Khtib M, Khoueiry R, Blachere T, Guerin JF, Lefevre A. Analysis of H19 methylation in control and abnormal human embryos, sperm and oocytes. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011;19(11):1138–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;6:CD002118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyTangdu Hospital, the Fourth Military Medical UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Reproductive Medicine CenterTianjin Frist Central HospitalTianjinChina
  3. 3.Shaanxi Institute for Food and Drug ControlXi’anPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations