MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1479701011

Abstract P355: Mendelian Randomization Supports Causality Between Maternal Hyperglycemia and Fetal Metabolic Programming by Leptin Epigenetic Modulation

2015· article· en· W1479701011 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐France Hivert, Catherine Allard, Véronique Desgagné, Julie Patenaude, Marilyn Lacroix, Laetitia Guillemette, Marie‐Claude Battista, Myriam Doyon, Julie Ménard, Jean‐Luc Ardilouze, Patrice Perron, Luigi Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMendelian randomizationMedicinePregnancyLeptinPopulationGestational diabetesConfoundingBody mass indexBirth weightDiabetes mellitusPhysiologyObstetricsEndocrinologyInternal medicineObesityGestationGeneticsBiologyGenotype
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In utero exposure to maternal hyperglycemia is associated with increased risk of obesity later in life. Animal studies have suggested that dysregulation of leptin pathways contributes to fetal metabolic programming of obesity, but human studies are limited. Mendelian Randomization can be used to reduce confounding factors and eliminate risk of reverse causation when assessing associations between biomarkers and outcomes using genetic variants as instrumental variables. Hypothesis: Using Mendelian Randomization, we tested the hypothesis that maternal glycemia was part of causal pathways modulating newborns’ leptin epigenetic regulation. Methods: We conducted a prospective population-based cohort study of pregnant women and newborns. This study included up to 485 mother-child dyads. We measured maternal anthropometry and glycemia during pregnancy; we collected clinical data, neonatal anthropometric measurements, and cord blood samples at birth. We excluded women treated for gestational diabetes to assess the impact of maternal glycemia across the normal spectrum and avoid confounding by treatment. We built a genetic risk score (GRS10) based on 10 genetic variants known for association with fasting glucose in previous genome-wide association studies in pregnant and non-pregnant populations. We used GRS10 calculated with maternal genetic variants as an instrumental variable representing maternal glycemia. We assessed DNA methylation at 16 CpG sites near LEP (encoding for leptin) in cord blood cells. We measured leptin in cord blood by ELISA (Luminex). Results: Women were 28±4 years old and had a mean body mass index of 25.4±5.6 kg/m2 in first trimester of pregnancy. Mean maternal fasting glucose was 4.2±0.3 mmol/L at second trimester of pregnancy. Newborns were 3.409±0.464 kg at birth and mean leptin levels were 14.7±13.2 ug/L in cord blood. The GRS10 was associated with maternal fasting glucose (β= 0.0457 per risk allele; SE= 0.007; P=7.76x10-11; N= 467) and was considered as an adequate instrumental variable (r2= 0.087 with maternal fasting glucose). DNA methylation at CpG site cg12083122 demonstrated the strongest association with leptin levels in cord blood (β= -0.17; SE= 0.07; P=0.01; N=170). The association between the instrumental variable GRS10 and DNA methylation at cg12083122 (β= -0.072; SE= 0.037; P=0.05; N=166) was in the expected direction and plausible in effect size when compared to expected observational association with measured maternal fasting glucose and DNA methylation at cg12083122 (βobs= -0.43; βiv = [-0.072 / 0.0457] = -1.58; 2-stage least-square β= -1.82; P=0.17). Conclusions: Our data support that maternal glycemia is causing epigenetic adaptations at LEP gene locus in newborns, suggesting that the programming effect of maternal glycemia might have life long impact on weight regulation in offspring through leptin epigenomics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→