MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210952560 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmac010

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReprogrammingEpigeneticsDNA methylationEpigenomeBiologyGenomic imprintingImprinting (psychology)BioinformaticsGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.015
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations66
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Reproduction UpdateSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207