Emerging evidence that the mammalian sperm epigenome serves as a template for embryo development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although more studies are demonstrating that a father's environment can influence child health and disease, the molecular mechanisms underlying non-genetic inheritance remain unclear. It was previously thought that sperm exclusively contributed its genome to the egg. More recently, association studies have shown that various environmental exposures including poor diet, toxicants, and stress, perturbed epigenetic marks in sperm at important reproductive and developmental loci that were associated with offspring phenotypes. The molecular and cellular routes that underlie how epigenetic marks are transmitted at fertilization, to resist epigenetic reprogramming in the embryo, and drive phenotypic changes are only now beginning to be unraveled. Here, we provide an overview of the state of the field of intergenerational paternal epigenetic inheritance in mammals and present new insights into the relationship between embryo development and the three pillars of epigenetic inheritance: chromatin, DNA methylation, and non-coding RNAs. We evaluate compelling evidence of sperm-mediated transmission and retention of paternal epigenetic marks in the embryo. Using landmark examples, we discuss how sperm-inherited regions may escape reprogramming to impact development via mechanisms that implicate transcription factors, chromatin organization, and transposable elements. Finally, we link paternally transmitted epigenetic marks to functional changes in the pre- and post-implantation embryo. Understanding how sperm-inherited epigenetic factors influence embryo development will permit a greater understanding related to the developmental origins of health and disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".