MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4210952560 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmac010

DNA methylation profiles after ART during human lifespan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4210952560 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie Barberet, Bastien Ducreux, Magali Guilleman, E. Simon, Céline Bruno, Patricia Fauque

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction Update · 2022
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReprogrammingEpigeneticsDNA methylationEpigenomeBiologyGenomic imprintingImprinting (psychology)BioinformaticsGeneticsGeneGene expression

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The many manipulations and processes used in ART coincide with the timing of epigenetic reprogramming and imprinting during female gametogenesis and pre-implantation embryo development, leading to concerns that the actual ART could negatively affect epigenetic reprogramming and imprinting in gametes and early embryos. A growing body of literature suggests that ART may affect epigenetic marks, such as DNA methylation, in the fetus and placenta. Potentially, this may be responsible later in life for the increased risk of adverse outcomes associated with ART. Unfortunately, the conclusions are inconsistent and, despite the increasing usage of ART, its safety at the epigenetic level is still not established. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: To examine whether ART is associated with DNA methylation modifications and if these modifications persist throughout life, we provide an update on the current understanding of epigenetic reprogramming in human gametes and embryos, and then focus on the assessment of fetal and postnatal DNA methylation modifications that may remain until adulthood following the use of ART in humans. SEARCH METHODS: We reviewed studies using targeted or epigenome-wide techniques to assess the DNA methylation patterns of the conceptus after ART compared with natural conceptions. A search for relevant studies was performed in the PubMed and EMBASE databases on 15 July 2021 with an extensive search equation. Studies on animals, gametes and embryos were subsequently excluded. After an in-depth review of full-text articles, studies on specific populations with imprinting disorders were removed and not further discussed. Before comprehensive analysis, the risk of bias of each included study was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. OUTCOMES: In total, 928 records were initially identified, and 51 were finally included in the systematic review. Given the variability in the genomic scale at which DNA methylation was measured in the different studies, they were separated into two categories: targeted DNA methylation or genome-wide DNA methylation study. The present systematic review has made it possible to assess a substantial number of children since more than 4000 DNA methylation profiles of ART concepti were compared to more than 7000 controls. There is evidence that ART conception is associated with aberrant DNA methylation in imprinted loci and other genes in various tissues. One isolated modification notably occur in the paternally expressed gene 1/mesoderm-specific transcript homologue (PEG1/MEST) region, and we cannot rule out other studied sequences owing to the heterogeneity of the evidence base. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Differences in DNA methylation after ART conceptions are modest, and the functional relevance in adult tissues is unknown. Functional effects in terms of gene expression as well as the roles of other epigenetic marks need to be further explored. Moreover, there is little overlap of findings obtained in targeted and genome-scale analyses owing to the lack of comparability of CpGs analyzed between both techniques. This issue also stems from small sample sizes and marked differences in methodology and cohort characteristics. Standardization of methodologies and large collaborative efforts are required to reduce the inconsistency of results and increase the robustness of findings. Finally, further studies are required to determine the contribution of parental infertility per se from the ART treatment.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,031

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,022
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0100,015
Bibliométrie0,0060,010
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,091
Tête enseignante GPT0,362
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations66
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman Reproduction UpdateMême sujetAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyTravaux en français237 207