At age 9, the methylome of assisted reproductive technology children that underwent embryo culture in different media is not significantly different on a genome-wide scale.
ART
ART children
culture medium
follow-up
methylome
Journal
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1460-2350
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8701199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 10 2022
31 10 2022
Historique:
received:
14
05
2022
revised:
05
09
2022
pubmed:
8
10
2022
medline:
4
11
2022
entrez:
7
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Can we detect DNA methylation differences between ART children that underwent embryo culture in different media? We identified no significant differences in site-specific or regional DNA methylation between the different culture medium groups. Embryo culture in G3 or K-SICM medium leads to differences in embryonic, neonatal and childhood outcomes, including growth and weight. The methylome may mediate this association as the period of in vitro culture of ART treatments coincides with epigenetic reprogramming. This study was conducted as a follow-up to a previous culture medium comparison study in which couples were pseudo-randomized to embryo culture in G3 or K-SICM medium. Of the resultant singletons, 120 (n = 65 G3, n = 55 K-SICM), were recruited at age 9. The ART children provided a saliva sample from which the methylome was analysed using the Infinium MethylationEPIC array. After quality and context filtering, 106 (n = 57 G3, n = 49 K-SICM) samples and 659 708 sites were retained for the analyses. Differential methylation analyses were conducted using mixed effects linear models corrected for age, sex, sample plate and cell composition. These were applied to all cytosine-guanine dinucleotide (CpG) sites, various genomic regions (genes, promoters, CpG Islands (CGIs)) and as a targeted analysis of imprinted genes and birth weight-associated CpG sites. Differential variance was assessed using the improved epigenetic variable outliers for risk prediction analysis (iEVORA) algorithm and methylation outliers were identified using a previously defined threshold (upper or lower quartile plus or minus three times the interquartile range, respectively). After correcting for multiple testing, we did not identify any significantly differentially methylated CpG sites, genes, promoters or CGIs between G3 and K-SICM children despite a lenient corrected P-value threshold of 0.1. Targeted analyses of (sites within) imprinted genes and birth weight-associated sites also did not identify any significant differences. The number of DNA methylation outliers per sample was comparable between the culture medium groups. iEVORA identified 101 differentially variable CpG sites of which 94 were more variable in the G3 group. Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) GSE196432. To detect significant methylation differences with a magnitude of <10% between the groups many more participants would be necessary; however, the clinical relevance of such small differences is unclear. The results of this study are reassuring, suggesting that if there is an effect of the culture medium on DNA methylation (and methylation-mediated diseases risk), it does not differ between the two media investigated here. The findings concur with other methylome studies of ART neonates and children that underwent embryo culture in different media, which also found no significant methylome differences. Study funded by March of Dimes (6-FY13-153), EVA (Erfelijkheid Voortplanting & Aanleg) specialty programme (grant no. KP111513) of Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+) and the Horizon 2020 innovation (ERIN) (grant no. EU952516) of the European Commission. The authors do not report any conflicts of interest relevant to this study. Dutch Trial register-NL4083.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36206092
pii: 6752049
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac213
pmc: PMC9627755
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2709-2721Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Références
Hum Reprod. 2015 Mar;30(3):530-42
pubmed: 25574031
Fertil Steril. 2017 Apr;107(4):1055-1060.e1
pubmed: 28238490
Cell Rep. 2018 Dec 4;25(10):2660-2667.e4
pubmed: 30517855
BMC Bioinformatics. 2016 Apr 22;17:178
pubmed: 27103033
Hum Reprod. 2016 Oct;31(10):2174-82
pubmed: 27554442
Bioinformatics. 2016 Sep 15;32(18):2847-9
pubmed: 27207943
Genes (Basel). 2021 Nov 28;12(12):
pubmed: 34946866
Hum Reprod. 2013 Aug;28(8):2067-74
pubmed: 23666752
Fertil Steril. 2006 Feb;85(2):526-8
pubmed: 16595249
Genet Epidemiol. 2018 Feb;42(1):20-33
pubmed: 29034560
Hum Reprod. 2014 Apr;29(4):661-9
pubmed: 24549211
Hum Reprod. 2012 Jul;27(7):1966-76
pubmed: 22552689
Hum Reprod. 2018 Sep 1;33(9):1645-1656
pubmed: 30032175
Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2018 Feb;1864(2):590-600
pubmed: 29196239
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Jul 31;2020(3):hoaa032
pubmed: 32760812
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 20;101(16):5880-5
pubmed: 15079084
Int J Epidemiol. 2015 May 13;44(4):1429-1441
pubmed: 25972603
Nat Cell Biol. 2018 Jul;20(7):847-858
pubmed: 29915357
Hum Reprod. 2009 Nov;24(11):2788-95
pubmed: 19648588
Epigenetics. 2022 Jan-Feb;17(2):161-177
pubmed: 33588693
Hum Reprod. 2020 Mar 27;35(3):516-528
pubmed: 32222762
Semin Reprod Med. 2009 Sep;27(5):358-68
pubmed: 19711246
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 23;11(3):e0150857
pubmed: 27008092
Hum Reprod Open. 2018 Oct 20;2018(4):hoy018
pubmed: 30895259
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Apr 20;43(7):e47
pubmed: 25605792
Hum Reprod Update. 2019 Mar 1;25(2):137-158
pubmed: 30753453
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Feb 14;7:37
pubmed: 32118021
Hum Reprod. 2021 Jan 25;36(2):479-492
pubmed: 33319250
Semin Reprod Med. 2018 May;36(3-04):221-232
pubmed: 30866009
Hum Reprod. 2021 Jun 18;36(7):2035-2049
pubmed: 33890633
Fertil Steril. 2014 Sep;102(3):759-766.e9
pubmed: 24998366
J Reprod Dev. 2008 Oct;54(5):370-4
pubmed: 18580042
Nat Commun. 2019 Apr 23;10(1):1893
pubmed: 31015461
NPJ Genom Med. 2022 Jun 29;7(1):39
pubmed: 35768464
BMC Bioinformatics. 2010 Nov 30;11:587
pubmed: 21118553
Hum Reprod Update. 2022 Aug 25;28(5):629-655
pubmed: 35259267
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 15;30(10):1431-9
pubmed: 24451622
Clin Epigenetics. 2018 Apr 11;10:50
pubmed: 29682088
Biol Reprod. 2014 Apr 17;90(4):80
pubmed: 24621920
Hum Reprod. 2016 Jun;31(6):1192-9
pubmed: 27052500
Aging (Albany NY). 2015 Aug;7(8):568-78
pubmed: 26342808
Clin Epigenetics. 2018 Jun 1;10:73
pubmed: 29881472
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Oct 15;19(10):
pubmed: 30326623
Bioinformatics. 2016 Jan 15;32(2):286-8
pubmed: 26424855
BJOG. 2019 Jan;126(2):158-166
pubmed: 30168249
Hum Reprod Update. 2018 Sep 1;24(5):556-576
pubmed: 29992283
J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2019 Jun;10(3):306-313
pubmed: 30101736
Hum Reprod Update. 2013 May-Jun;19(3):210-20
pubmed: 23385469
Fertil Steril. 2021 Aug;116(2):493-504
pubmed: 33823999
Nat Commun. 2019 Sep 2;10(1):3922
pubmed: 31477727
Nat Commun. 2022 Apr 7;13(1):1896
pubmed: 35393427
Fertil Steril. 2013 Mar 1;99(3):632-41
pubmed: 23357453
Genome Biol. 2012 Jun 15;13(6):R44
pubmed: 22703947
Hum Reprod. 2010 Mar;25(3):605-12
pubmed: 20085915
Genome Biol. 2019 Mar 14;20(1):55
pubmed: 30871603
BMC Bioinformatics. 2016 Nov 25;17(1):483
pubmed: 27884101
BMC Med. 2018 Nov 28;16(1):224
pubmed: 30482203
Epigenetics. 2015;10(6):474-83
pubmed: 25580569
Fertil Steril. 2017 Mar;107(3):622-631.e5
pubmed: 28104241