MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119354482 · doi:10.1071/rdv33n2ab70

70 Energy metabolites induce differential DNA methylation levels and transcription in trophectoderm and inner cell mass

2021· article· en· W3119354482 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Ispada, Camila Bruna de Lima, Érika Cristina dos Santos, Aldcejam Martins da Fonseca, J. V. Alcantara da Silva, H. C. da Rocha, Marcella Pecora Milazzoto

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystInner cell massBiologyDNA methylationMethylationAndrologyEmbryoEmbryo cultureDNA demethylationMolecular biologyEpigeneticsGene expressionEmbryogenesisDNAGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA methylation/demethylation is one of several epigenetic mechanisms by which metabolism regulates gene expression. More specifically, α-ketoglutarate (αKG) and succinate (Suc) are tricarboxylic acid cycle metabolites that may decrease and increase, respectively, the activity of DNA demethylases. Because pre-implantation embryos undergo reprogramming in both DNA methylation and metabolic pathways, it is possible that metabolic changes influence this epigenetic mark. To test that hypothesis, bovine embryos were in vitro produced by using standard protocols and, 8 h after fertilization, zygotes were transferred to synthetic oviductal fluid (SOF)-based culture medium (control, CO) or culture medium containing 4 mM dimethyl-αKG, or 4 mM dimethyl-Suc, where they remained until Day 4. Embryos were collected at Day 4 or remained in culture until Day 7, in control medium. Day 4 embryos were evaluated for DNA methylation levels by immunofluorescence detection of 5-methylcytosine (5mC) and cleavage rate. Day 7 embryos were also assessed for DNA methylation by immunofluorescence of 5mC, total cell number, blastocyst rates, and quantification of ACTB (housekeeping), DNMT1, DNMT3A, and DNMT3B transcript by RT-qPCR in trophectoderm (TE) and inner cell mass (ICM) separated by immunosurgery. The mRNA expression levels of were normalized to internal control ACTB and subsequently calculated using the 2−ΔΔCT method, using the control group for comparisons. All data were submitted to outlier detection using ROUT with Q = 1% followed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher’s least significant difference (l.s.d.) test in GraphPad Prism. αKG and Suc did not influence cleavage or blastocyst rates, total cell number, or cell allocation. αKG supplementation reduced 5mC fluorescence intensity in embryos assessed at Day 4 (CO: 12.8 ± 0.4 AU; αKG: 9.0 ± 0.2AU; P < 0.0001) and Day 7 (CO: 36.5 ± 0.7 AU; αKG: 23.5 ± 0.4 AU; P < 0.0001), whereas Suc incubation increased DNA methylation levels in embryos at Day 4 (CO: 12.8 ± 0.4 AU; Suc: 15.7 ± 0.3 AU; P < 0.0001) and Day 7 (CO: 36.5 ± 0.7 AU; Suc: 70.5 ± 0.5 AU; P < 0.0001). αKG increased expression of DNMT1 (P = 0.0438) in the ICM and led to lower levels of DNMT1 (P < 0.0001), DNMT3A (P = 0.0013), and DNMT3B (P = 0.0015) in TE cells. The culture with Suc increased DNMT1 (P = 0.0074), DNMT3A (P = 0.0186), and DNMT3B (P = 0.0286) in ICM. Regarding TE, Suc resulted in lower expression of DNMT1 (P < 0.0001), DNMT3A (P = 0.0017), and DNMT3B (P = 0.0052). In conclusion, both supplementations resulted in global DNA methylation changes without affecting embryo development rates or morphology. These changes were accompanied by alterations in transcript profiles between ICM and TE, with differences among treatments being more pronounced in transcripts from ICM. This is the first report of DNA demethylation–induced changes by analogues of TCA cycle metabolites during early reprogramming of the bovine embryo with prolonged effects in TE and ICM cells. This research was funded by FAPESP: 2017/18384-0; 2018/11668-6.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207