Epigenetic effects of microRNA on fetal heart development

This 2017 Australian review’s subject was epigenetic impacts involving microRNA in adverse intrauterine environments, and how these affected fetal heart tissue development:

“We describe how an adverse intrauterine environment can influence the expression of miRNAs (a sub-set of non-coding RNAs) and how these changes may impact heart development. Potential consequences of altered miRNA expression in the fetal heart include; Hypoxia inducible factor (HIF) activation, dysregulation of angiogenesis, mitochondrial abnormalities and altered glucose and fatty acid transport/metabolism.

This feedback network between miRNAs and other epigenetic pathways forms an epigenetics–miRNA regulatory circuit that organizes the whole gene expression profile. The human heart encodes over 700 miRNAs.”


A 2016 review Lack of oxygen’s epigenetic effects also provided a details about hypoxia. Those reviewers importantly pointed out the natural lack of a feedback mechanism to the HIF-1α signaling source, and how this evolutionary lack contributed to diseases.

http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/18/12/2628/htm “Adverse Intrauterine Environment and Cardiac miRNA Expression”

Advertisements

Epigenetic mechanisms regulate bone growth

This 2017 Baltimore/China rodent study found:

“MSPC [Mesenchymal stem/progenitor cell] senescence is epigenetically controlled by the polycomb histone methyltransferase enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (Ezh2) and its trimethylation of histone H3 on Lysine 27 (H3K27me3) mark. Ezh2 maintains the repression of key cell senescence inducer genes through H3K27me3.

Our work establishes the role of Ezh2-H3K27me3 as a key epigenetic regulator that controls the onset and progression of MSPC senescence during the transition of fast- to slow-growing phase of long bones.

The self-renewal and proliferative capacity of cells in primary spongiosa of fast-growing bones are maintained by a high level of Ezh2-H3K27me3, whereas loss of Ezh2-H3K27me3 during late puberty leads to cell senescence.”

One of the experiments led to this note in the Discussion section:

“An epidemiologic study demonstrated that 60% of the risk of osteoporosis can be explained by the bone mineral acquired by early adulthood.

Our finding that deletion of Ezh2 in nestin+ cells during early puberty increases the risk of osteoporosis in later adulthood suggests that premature cellular senescence in the primary spongiosa region during the prepubertal or early pubertal phase may also be a major cause of osteoporosis/bone loss in later life.”


The study was short of explanations in several areas. For example, causes for the effect of “loss of Ezh2-H3K27me3 during late puberty” weren’t specified.

In another example, this statement referenced nestin-positive cells:

“Because these cells are likely no longer required in this particular region during adulthood, they stop proliferating and undergo senescence during late puberty.”

but what caused the cells to be “no longer required” wasn’t specified.

The “programmed” and “fate” words were used in the Abstract:

“Our data reveals a programmed cell fate change in postnatal skeleton..”

but not explained until the Discussion section:

“The senescence process is program[m]ed by a conserved mechanism because it restricts in a particular region of long bone and follows a specific time course.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01509-0 “Programmed cell senescence in skeleton during late puberty”

Beliefs about genetic and environmental influences in twin studies

This 2017 Penn State simulation found:

“By taking advantage of the natural variation in genetic relatedness among identical (monozygotic: MZ) and fraternal (dizygotic: DZ) twins, twin studies are able to estimate genetic and environmental contributions to complex human behaviors.

In the standard biometric model when MZ or DZ twin similarity differs from 1.00 or 0.50, respectively, the variance that should be attributed to genetic influences is instead attributed to nonshared environmental influences, thus deflating the estimates of genetic influences and inflating the estimates of nonshared environmental influences.

Although estimates of genetic and nonshared environmental influences from the standard biometric model were found to deviate from “true” values, the bias was usually smaller than 10% points indicating that the interpretations of findings from previous twin studies are mostly correct.”

The study model’s input was five phenotypes that varied the degrees of:

  1. Genetic and epigenetic heritability;
  2. Shared environmental factors; and
  3. Nonshared environmental factors.

Item 1 above was different than the standard model’s treatment of heritable factors, which considers only additive genetic influences.

The authors cited studies for moderate and significant shared environmental influences in child and adolescent psychopathology and parenting to support the model’s finding that overall, item 2 above wasn’t underestimated.


I wasn’t satisfied with the simulation’s description of item 1 above. With

  1. environmental influences accounted for elsewhere, and
  2. no references to transgenerational epigenetic inheritance,
  3. randomness seemed to be the only remaining explanation for an epigenetic heritability factor.

Inserting the model’s non-environmental randomness explanation for epigenetic heritability into the abstract’s statement above exposed the non sequitur:

In the standard biometric model when MZ or DZ twin similarity differs from 1.00 or 0.50, respectively, the variance that should be attributed to genetic [and non-environmental stochastic heritability] influences is instead attributed to nonshared environmental influences, thus deflating the estimates of genetic [and non-environmental stochastic heritability] influences and inflating the estimates of nonshared environmental influences.

Why did the researchers design their model with an adjustment for non-environmental epigenetic heritability? Maybe it had something to do with:

“..estimates of genetic and nonshared environmental influences from the standard biometric model were found to deviate from “true” values.”

In any event, I didn’t see that this simulation was much more than an attempt to reaffirm a belief that:

“..the interpretations of findings from previous twin studies are mostly correct.”


Empirical rather than simulated findings in human twin study research are more compelling, such as The primary causes of individual differences in DNA methylation are environmental factors with its finding:

“Differential methylation is primarily non-genetic in origin, with non-shared environment accounting for most of the variance. These non-genetic effects are mainly tissue-specific.

The full scope of environmental variation remains underappreciated.”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-017-9875-x “The Impact of Variation in Twin Relatedness on Estimates of Heritability and Environmental Influences” (not freely available)

Transgenerationally inherited epigenetic effects of fetal alcohol exposure

The fourth paper of Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance week was a 2016 German rodent study of transgenerational epigenetic effects of alcohol:

“We investigated 2 generations of offspring born to alcohol-treated mothers. Here, we show that memory impairment and reduced synthesis of acetylcholine occurs in both F1 (exposed to ethanol in utero) and F2 generation (never been exposed to ethanol). Effects in the F2 generation are most likely consequences of transgenerationally transmitted epigenetic modifications in stem cells induced by alcohol.

The results further suggest an epigenetic trait for an anticholinergic endophenotype associated with cognitive dysfunction which might be relevant to our understanding of mental impairment in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders.”

F0 generation mothers modeled human fetal alcohol syndrome. They were exposed to ethanol gradually up to 20%, then mated. The 20% ethanol intake level was maintained until the F1 generation pups were born, then gradually diminished to 0%. After a ten-day wait, an eight-week handling and shaping period started, followed by five weeks of behavioral testing.

The F1 children and F2 grandchildren started an eight-week handling and shaping period after young adulthood, followed by five weeks of behavioral testing. The F1 children were mated after behavioral testing.

The F0 parents showed no significant differences in working memory and reference memory compared with controls. Both the F1 children and F2 grandchildren were significantly impaired in the same tests compared with controls, with the F1 children performing worse than the F2 grandchildren. No sex-dependent differences were noted.

After behavioral impairments due to transgenerationally transmitted epigenetic modifications were established, the F2 grandchildren received treatments to ascertain the contribution of cholinergic dysfunction in their behavioral impairments. It was confirmed, as an acetylcholine esterase inhibitor that crosses the blood-brain barrier almost completely erased working-memory and reference-memory performance deficits.

Items in the Discussion section included:

  • A dozen studies from 2014-2016 were cited for epigenetic mechanisms of transgenerational inheritance stemming from parental alcohol consumption; and
  • Transgenerational inheritance of alcohol-induced neurodevelopmental deficits may involve epigenetic mechanisms that are resistant to developmental clearance.

As argued in Transgenerational effects of early environmental insults on aging and disease and A review of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of reproductive disease, testing of F3 great-grandchildren born of F2 grandchild females was needed to control for the variable of direct F2 grandchild germ-line exposure.

http://www.neurobiologyofaging.org/article/S0197-4580(16)30303-7/pdf “Transgenerational transmission of an anticholinergic endophenotype with memory dysfunction” (not freely available)

Transgenerational pathological traits induced by prenatal immune activation

The third paper of Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance week was a 2016 Swiss rodent study of immune system epigenetic effects:

“Our study demonstrates for, we believe, the first time that prenatal immune activation can negatively affect brain and behavioral functions in multiple generations. These findings thus highlight a novel pathological aspect of this early-life adversity in shaping disease risk across generations.”

The epigenetic effects noted in the initial round of experiments included:

  • F1 child and F2 grandchild impaired sociability;
  • F1 and F2 abnormal fear expression;
  • F1 but not F2 sensorimotor gating deficiencies; and
  • F2 but not F1 behavioral despair associated with depressive-like behavior.

These transgenerational effects emerged in both male and female offspring. The prenatal immune activation timing corresponded to the middle of the first trimester of human pregnancy.

The effects were found to be mediated by the paternal but not maternal lineage. The researchers didn’t develop a maternal lineage F3 great-grandchild generation.

The next round of experiments done with the paternal lineage F3 great-grandchildren noted these epigenetic effects:

  • The F3 great-grandchildren had impaired sociability, abnormal fear expression and behavioral despair; and
  • The F3 great-grandchildren had normal sensorimotor gating.

Since the first round of tests didn’t show sex-dependent effects, the F3 great-grandchildren were male-only to minimize the number of animals.

Samples of only the amygdalar complex were taken to develop findings of transcriptomic effects of prenatal immune activation.

Items in the Discussion section included:

  1. The F2 grandchild and F3 great-grandchild generations’ phenotype of impaired sociability, abnormal fear expression and behavioral despair demonstrated that prenatal immune activation likely altered epigenetic marks in the germ line of the F1 children which resisted erasure and epigenetic reestablishment during germ cell development.
  2. Abnormal F1 child sensorimotor gating followed by normal F2 grandchild and F3 great-grandchild sensorimotor gating demonstrated that prenatal immune activation may also modify somatic but not germ cells.
  3. Non-significant F1 child behavioral despair followed by F2 grandchild and F3 great-grandchild behavioral despair demonstrated that prenatal immune activation may modify F1 germ cells sufficiently to develop a transgenerational phenotype, but unlike item 1 above, somatic cells were insufficiently modified, and the phenotype skipped the F1 children.
  4. Studies were cited that prenatal immune activation later in the gestational process may produce different effects.

The initial round of experiments wasn’t definitive for the maternal lineage. As argued in Transgenerational effects of early environmental insults on aging and disease and A review of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of reproductive disease, testing of maternal lineage F3 great-grandchildren was needed to control for the variable of direct F2 grandchild germ-line exposure.

Also, effects that didn’t reach statistical significance in the maternal lineage F1 children and F2 grandchildren may have been different in the F3 great-grandchildren. The researchers indirectly acknowledged this lack by noting that these and other effects of immune challenges in a maternal lineage weren’t excluded by the study.

https://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v22/n1/pdf/mp201641a.pdf “Transgenerational transmission and modification of pathological traits induced by prenatal immune activation” (not freely available)


The study’s lead researcher authored a freely-available 2017 review that placed this study in context and provided further details from other studies:

http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v7/n5/full/tp201778a.html “Epigenetic and transgenerational mechanisms in infection-mediated neurodevelopmental disorders”

Experience-induced transgenerational programming of neuronal structure and functions

The second paper of Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance week was a 2017 German/Israeli review focused on:

“The inter- and transgenerational effects of stress experience prior to and during gestation..the concept of stress-induced (re-)programming in more detail by highlighting epigenetic mechanisms and particularly those affecting the development of monoaminergic transmitter systems, which constitute the brain’s reward system..we offer some perspectives on the development of protective and therapeutic interventions in cognitive and emotional disturbances resulting from preconception and prenatal stress.”

The reviewers noted that human studies have difficulties predicting adult responses to stress that are based on gene expression and early life experience. Clinical studies that experimentally manipulate the type, level and timing of the stressful exposure aren’t possible. Clinical studies are also predicated on the symptoms being recognized as disorders and/or diseases.

The researchers noted difficulties in human interventions and treatments. Before and during pregnancy, and perinatal periods are where stress effects are largest, but current human research hasn’t gathered sufficient findings to develop practical guidelines for early intervention programs.


I’m not persuaded by arguments that cite the difficulties of performing human research on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. There are overwhelming numbers of people who have obvious stress symptoms: these didn’t develop in a vacuum.

Researchers:

  • Design human studies to test what’s known from transgenerational epigenetic inheritance animal studies that will include documenting the subjects’ detailed histories with sufficient biometric samples and data obtained from their lineage.
  • Induce the subjects to at least temporarily avoid what’s harmful for them and/or the offspring, in favor of what’s beneficial.
  • Document the subjects’ actions with history and samples.

I acknowledge that economic incentives may not be enough to get people to participate. I’m familiar with a juvenile sickle-cell study that didn’t get enough subjects despite offering free transportation and hundreds of dollars per visit. The main problem seemed to be that the additional income would be reported and threaten the caregivers’ welfare benefits.

Stop whining that your jobs are difficult, researchers. Society doesn’t owe you a job. Earn it – get yourself and the people in your organization motivated to advance science.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341630731X “Experience-induced transgenerational (re-)programming of neuronal structure and functions: Impact of stress prior and during pregnancy” (not freely available)

Transgenerational effects of early environmental insults on aging and disease

The first paper of Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance week was a 2017 Canadian/Netherlands review that’s organized as follows:

“First, we address mechanisms of developmental and transgenerational programming of disease and inheritance. Second, we discuss experimental and clinical findings linking early environmental determinants to adverse aging trajectories in association with possible parental contributions and sex-specific effects. Third, we outline the main mechanisms of age-related functional decline and suggest potential interventions to reverse negative effects of transgenerational programming.”

A transgenerational phenotype was defined as an epigenetic modification that was maintained at least either to the F2 grandchildren in the paternal lineage or to the F3 great-grandchildren in the maternal lineage.

The reviewers noted that the mechanisms of transgenerational programming are complex and multivariate.  The severity, timing, and type of exposure, lineage of transmission, germ cell exposure, and gender of an organism were the main factors that may determine the consequences. The mechanisms reviewed were:

  1. Parental exposure to an adverse environment;
  2. Altered maternal behavior and care of the offspring; and
  3. Experience-dependent modifications of the epigenome.

There was a long list of diseases and impaired functionalities that were consequences of ancestral experiences and exposures. Most of the studies were animal, but a few were human, such as those done on effects of extended power outages during the Quebec ice storm of January 1998.


One intervention that was effective in reversing a transgenerational phenotype induced by deficient rodent maternal care was to place pups with a caring foster female soon after birth. It’s probably unacceptable in human societies to preemptively recognize all poor-care human mothers and remove the infant to caring foster mothers, but researchers could probably find enough instances to develop studies of the effectiveness of the placements in reversing a transgenerational phenotype.

The review didn’t have suggestions for reversing human transgenerational phenotypes, just  “..potential interventions to reverse negative effects of transgenerational programming.” The interventions suggested for humans – exercise, enriched lifestyle, cognitive training, dietary regimens, and expressive art and writing therapies – only reduced the impact of transgenerational epigenetic effects.

The tricky wording of “..reverse negative effects of transgenerational programming” showed that research paradigms weren’t aimed at resolving causes. The review is insufficient for the same reasons mentioned in How one person’s paradigms regarding stress and epigenetics impedes relevant research, prompting my same comment:

“Aren’t people interested in human treatments of originating causes so that their various symptoms don’t keep bubbling up? Why wouldn’t research paradigms be aligned accordingly?”

When reversals of human transgenerational phenotypes aren’t researched, the problems compound as they’re transmitted to the next generations.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341630714X “Transgenerational effects of early environmental insults on aging and disease incidence” (not freely available)