The impact of assisted reproductive technologies on genomic imprinting and imprinting disorders

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 210-221

  Uyar, Asli ^a,b   Seli, Emre ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b OKAN UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

assisted reproductive technologies; genomic imprinting; imprinting disorders

Indexed keywords

DNA METHYLTRANSFERASE;

ALLELE; BECKWITH WIEDEMANN SYNDROME; DNA METHYLATION; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; GAMETOGENESIS; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE LOCUS; GENOME IMPRINTING; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; MOUSE EMBRYO; NONHUMAN; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SUBFERTILITY; ANIMAL; BECKWITH-WIEDEMANN SYNDROME; FEMALE; GENETIC EPIGENESIS; GENETICS; INFERTILITY; MALE; MOUSE; NEWBORN; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTOR;

ANIMALS; BECKWITH-WIEDEMANN SYNDROME; DNA METHYLATION; EPIGENESIS, GENETIC; FEMALE; GENOMIC IMPRINTING; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INFERTILITY; MALE; MICE; PREGNANCY; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84900403512     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: 1473656X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000071     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Surani MA, Barton SC, Norris ML. Development of reconstituted mouse eggs suggests imprinting of the genome during gametogenesis. Nature 1984; 308:548-550.
2. McGrath J, Solter D. Completion of mouse embryogenesis requires both the maternal and paternal genomes. Cell 1984; 37:179-183.
3. Cattanach BM, Kirk M. Differential activity of maternally and paternally derived chromosome regions in mice. Nature 1985; 315:496-498.
4. Reik W, Walter J. Genomic imprinting: parental influence on the genome. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2:21-32.
5. Maher ER, Reik W. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome: imprinting in clusters revisited. J Clin Invest 2000; 105:247-252.
6. Clayton-Smith J, Laan L. Angelman syndrome: a review of the clinical and genetic aspects. J Med Genet 2003; 40:87-95.
7. Cassidy SB, Dykens E, Williams CA. Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes: sister imprinted disorders. Am J Med Genet 2000; 97:136-146.
8. Amor DJ, Halliday J. A review of known imprinting syndromes and their association with assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:2826-2834.
9. Odom LN, Segars J. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2010; 17:517-522.
10. Denomme MM, Mann MR. Genomic imprints as a model for the analysis of epigenetic stability during assisted reproductive technologies. Reproduction 2012; 144:393-409.
11. van Montfoort AP, Hanssen LL, de Sutter P, et al. Assisted reproduction treatment and epigenetic inheritance. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18:171-197.
12. Sapienza C, Peterson AC, Rossant J, Balling R. Degree of methylation of transgenes is dependent on gamete of origin. Nature 1987; 328:251-254.
13. Li E, Beard C, Jaenisch R. Role for DNA methylation in genomic imprinting. Nature 1993; 366:362-365.
14. Li E, Bestor TH, Jaenisch R. Targeted mutation of the DNA methyltransferase gene results in embryonic lethality. Cell 1992; 69:915-926.
15. Okano M, Bell DW, Haber DA, Li E. DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b are essential for de novo methylation and mammalian development. Cell 1999; 99:247-257.
16. Lucifero D, Mann MR, Bartolomei MS, Trasler JM. Gene-specific timing and epigenetic memory in oocyte imprinting. Hum Mol Genet 2004; 13:839-849.
17. Hata K, Okano M, Lei H, Li E. Dnmt3L cooperates with the Dnmt3 family of de novo DNA methyltransferases to establish maternal imprints in mice. Development 2002; 129:1983-1993.
18. Bourc'his D, Xu GL, Lin CS, et al. Dnmt3L and the establishment of maternal genomic imprints. Science 2001; 294:2536-2539.
19. Mayer W, Niveleau A, Walter J, et al. Demethylation of the zygotic paternal genome. Nature 2000; 403:501-502.
20. Oswald J, Engemann S, Lane N, et al. Active demethylation of the paternal genome in the mouse zygote. Curr Biol 2000; 10:475-478.
21. Gu TP, Guo F, Yang H, et al. The role of Tet3 DNA dioxygenase in epigenetic reprogramming by oocytes. Nature 2011; 477:606-610.
22. Monk M, Boubelik M, Lehnert S. Temporal and regional changes in DNA methylation in the embryonic, extraembryonic and germ cell lineages during mouse embryo development. Development 1987; 99:371-382.
23. Howell CY, Bestor TH, Ding F, et al. Genomic imprinting disrupted by a maternal effect mutation in the Dnmt1 gene. Cell 2001; 104:829-838.
24. Hirasawa R, Chiba H, Kaneda M, et al. Maternal and zygotic Dnmt1 are necessary and sufficient for the maintenance of DNA methylation imprints during preimplantation development. Genes Dev 2008; 22:1607-1616.
25. Li X, Ito M, Zhou F, et al. A maternal-zygotic effect gene, Zfp57, maintains both maternal and paternal imprints. Dev Cell 2008; 15:547-557.
26. Messerschmidt DM, de Vries W, Ito M, et al. Trim28 is required for epigenetic stability during mouse oocyte to embryo transition. Science 2012; 335:1499-1502.
27. Guibert S, Forne T, Weber M. Global profiling of DNA methylation erasure in mouse primordial germ cells. Genome Res 2012; 22:633-641.
28. Kobayashi H, Sakurai T, Miura F, et al. High-resolution DNA methylome analysis of primordial germ cells identifies gender-specific reprogramming in mice. Genome Res 2013; 23:616-627.
29. Saitou M, Kagiwada S, Kurimoto K. Epigenetic reprogramming in mouse preimplantation development and primordial germ cells. Development 2012; 139:15-31.
30. Williamson C, Blake A, Thomas S, et al. World wide web site: mouse imprinting data and references. Oxfordshire: MRC Harwell; 2014.
31. Macdonald WA, Mann MR. Epigenetic regulation of genomic imprinting from germ line to preimplantation. Mol Reprod Dev 2014; 81:126-140.
32. Spahn L, Barlow DP. An ICE pattern crystallizes. Nat Genet 2003; 35:11-12.
33. Kaneda M, Okano M, Hata K, et al. Essential role for de novo DNA methyltransferase Dnmt3a in paternal and maternal imprinting. Nature 2004; 429:900-903.
34. Peters J, Wroe SF, Wells CA, et al. A cluster of oppositely imprinted transcripts at the Gnas locus in the distal imprinting region of mouse chromosome 2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999; 96:3830-3835.
35. Smith RJ, Dean W, Konfortova G, Kelsey G. Identification of novel imprinted genes in a genome-wide screen for maternal methylation. Genome Res 2003; 13:558-569.
36. Mizuno Y, Sotomaru Y, Katsuzawa Y, et al. Asb4, Ata3, and Dcn are novel imprinted genes identified by high-throughput screening using RIKEN cDNA microarray. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2002; 290:1499-1505.
37. Sritanaudomchai H, Ma H, Clepper L, et al. Discovery of a novel imprinted gene by transcriptional analysis of parthenogenetic embryonic stem cells. Hum Reprod 2010; 25:1927-1941.
38. Choi JD, Underkoffler LA, Collins JN, et al. Microarray expression profiling of tissues from mice with uniparental duplications of chromosomes 7 and 11 to identify imprinted genes. Mamm Genome 2001; 12:758-764.
39. Schulz R, Menheniott TR, Woodfine K, et al. Chromosome-wide identification of novel imprinted genes using microarrays and uniparental disomies. Nucleic Acids Res 2006; 34:e88.
40. Gregg C, Zhang J, Weissbourd B, et al. High-resolution analysis of parent-oforigin allelic expression in the mouse brain. Science 2010; 329:643-648.
41. Wang X, Soloway PD, Clark AG. A survey for novel imprinted genes in the mouse placenta by mRNA-seq. Genetics 2011; 189:109-122.
42. Reed MR, Riggs AD, Mann JR. Deletion of a direct repeat element has no effect on Igf2 and H19 imprinting. Mamm Genome 2001; 12:873-876.
43. Lewis A, Mitsuya K, Constancia M, Reik W. Tandem repeat hypothesis in imprinting: deletion of a conserved direct repeat element upstream of H19 has no effect on imprinting in the Igf2-H19 region. Mol Cell Biol 2004; 24:5650-5656.
44. Luedi PP, Hartemink AJ, Jirtle RL. Genome-wide prediction of imprinted murine genes. Genome Res 2005; 15:875-884.
45. Morison IM, Ramsay JP, Spencer HG. A census of mammalian imprinting. Trends Genet 2005; 21:457-465.
46. Kerjean A, Couvert P, Heams T, et al. In vitro follicular growth affects oocyte imprinting establishment in mice. Eur J Hum Genet 2003; 11:493-496.
47. Anckaert E, Adriaenssens T, Romero S, et al. Unaltered imprinting establishment of key imprinted genes in mouse oocytes after in vitro follicle culture under variable follicle-stimulating hormone exposure. Int J Dev Biol 2009; 53:541-548.
48. Anckaert E, Adriaenssens T, Romero S, Smitz J. Ammonium accumulation and use of mineral oil overlay do not alter imprinting establishment at three key imprinted genes in mouse oocytes grown and matured in a long-term follicle culture. Biol Reprod 2009; 81:666-673.
49. Anckaert E, De Rycke M, Smitz J. Culture of oocytes and risk of imprinting defects. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19:52-66.
50. Denomme MM, Zhang L, Mann MR. Embryonic imprinting perturbations do not originate from superovulation-induced defects in DNA methylation acquisition. Fertil Steril 2011; 96:734-738; e732.
51. Trapphoff T, El Hajj N, Zechner U, et al. DNA integrity, growth pattern, spindle formation, chromosomal constitution and imprinting patterns of mouse oocytes from vitrified preantral follicles. Hum Reprod 2010; 25:3025-3042.
52. Li T, Vu TH, Ulaner GA, et al. IVF results in de novo DNA methylation and histone methylation at an Igf2-H19 imprinting epigenetic switch. Mol Hum Reprod 2005; 11:631-640.
53. Fauque P, Jouannet P, Lesaffre C, et al. Assisted reproductive technology affects developmental kinetics, H19 imprinting control region methylation and H19 gene expression in individual mouse embryos. BMC Dev Biol 2007; 7:116.
54. Market-Velker BA, Zhang L, Magri LS, et al. Dual effects of superovulation: loss of maternal and paternal imprinted methylation in a dose-dependent manner. Hum Mol Genet 2010; 19:36-51.
55. Market-Velker BA, Fernandes AD, Mann MR. Side-by-side comparison of five commercial media systems in a mouse model: suboptimal in vitro culture interferes with imprint maintenance. Biol Reprod 2010; 83:938-950.
56. Lopes FL, Fortier AL, Darricarrere N, et al. Reproductive and epigenetic outcomes associated with aging mouse oocytes. Hum Mol Genet 2009; 18:2032-2044.
57. Doherty AS, Mann MR, Tremblay KD, et al. Differential effects of culture on imprinted H19 expression in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Biol Reprod 2000; 62:1526-1535.
58. Khosla S, Dean W, Brown D, et al. Culture of preimplantation mouse embryos affects fetal development and the expression of imprinted genes. Biol Reprod 2001; 64:918-926.
59. Mann MR, Lee SS, Doherty AS, et al. Selective loss of imprinting in the placenta following preimplantation development in culture. Development 2004; 131:3727-3735.
60. Rivera RM, Stein P, Weaver JR, et al. Manipulations of mouse embryos prior to implantation result in aberrant expression of imprinted genes on day 9.5 of development. Hum Mol Genet 2008; 17:1-14.
61. Fauque P, Mondon F, Letourneur F, et al. In vitro fertilization and embryo culture strongly impact the placental transcriptome in the mouse model. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9218.
62. Khoueiry R, Ibala-Rhomdane S, Mery L, et al. Dynamic CpG methylation of the KCNQ1OT1 gene during maturation of human oocytes. J Med Genet 2008; 45:583-588.
63. Chen SL, Shi XY, Zheng HY, et al. Aberrant DNA methylation of imprinted H19 gene in human preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril 2010; 94:2356-2358; 2358.e1.
64. Katari S, Turan N, Bibikova M, et al. DNA methylation and gene expression differences in children conceived in vitro or in vivo. Hum Mol Genet 2009; 18:3769-3778.
65. Weksberg R, Shuman C, Beckwith JB. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Eur J Hum Genet 2010; 18:8-14.
66. Cox GF, Burger J, Lip V, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection may increase the risk of imprinting defects. Am J Hum Genet 2002; 71:162-164.
67. Orstavik KH, Eiklid K, van der Hagen CB, et al. Another case of imprinting defect in a girl with Angelman syndrome who was conceived by intracytoplasmic semen injection. Am J Hum Genet 2003; 72:218-219.
68. Ludwig M, Katalinic A, Gross S, et al. Increased prevalence of imprinting defects in patients with Angelman syndrome born to subfertile couples. J Med Genet 2005; 42:289-291.
69. DeBaun MR, Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Association of in vitro fertilization with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and epigenetic alterations of LIT1 and H19. Am J Hum Genet 2003; 72:156-160.
70. Maher ER, Brueton LA, Bowdin SC, et al. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and assisted reproduction technology (ART). J Med Genet 2003; 40:62-64.
71. Gicquel C, Gaston V,Mandelbaum J, et al. In vitro fertilization may increase the risk of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome related to the abnormal imprinting of the KCN1OT gene. Am J Hum Genet 2003; 72:1338-1341.
72. Halliday J, Oke K, Breheny S, et al. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and IVF: a case-control study. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 75:526-528.
73. Sutcliffe AG, Peters CJ, Bowdin S, et al. Assisted reproductive therapies and imprinting disorders: a preliminary British survey. Hum Reprod 2006; 21:1009-1011.
74. Rossignol S, Steunou V, Chalas C, et al. The epigenetic imprinting defect of patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome born after assisted reproductive technology is not restricted to the 11p15 region. J Med Genet 2006; 43:902-907.
75. Lim D, Bowdin SC, Tee L, et al. Clinical and molecular genetic features of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome associated with assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod 2009; 24:741-747.
76. Chang AS, Moley KH, Wangler M, et al. Association between Beckwith- Wiedemann syndrome and assisted reproductive technology: a case series of 19 patients. Fertil Steril 2005; 83:349-354.
77. Lidegaard O, Pinborg A, Andersen AN. Imprinting diseases and IVF: Danish National IVF cohort study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20:950-954.
78. Bowdin S, Allen C, Kirby G, et al. A survey of assisted reproductive technology births and imprinting disorders. Hum Reprod 2007; 22:3237-3240.
79. Doornbos ME, Maas SM, McDonnell J, et al. Infertility, assisted reproduction technologies and imprinting disturbances: a Dutch study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22:2476-2480.
80. Strawn EY Jr, Bick D, Swanson A. Is it the patient or the IVF? Beckwith- Wiedemann syndrome in both spontaneous and assisted reproductive conceptions. Fertil Steril 2010; 94:754.e1-754.e2.
81. Manning M, Lissens W, Bonduelle M, et al. Study of DNA-methylation patterns at chromosome 15q11-q13 in children born after ICSI reveals no imprinting defects. Mol Hum Reprod 2000; 6:1049-1053.
82. Gomes MV, Huber J, Ferriani RA, et al. Abnormal methylation at the KvDMR1 imprinting control region in clinically normal children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. Mol Hum Reprod 2009; 15:471-477.
83. Shi X, Ni Y, Zheng H, et al. Abnormal methylation patterns at the IGF2/H19 imprinting control region in phenotypically normal babies conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 158:52-55.
84. Tierling S, Souren NY, Gries J, et al. Assisted reproductive technologies do not enhance the variability of DNA methylation imprints in human. J Med Genet 2010; 47:371-376.
85. Feng C, Tian S, Zhang Y, et al. General imprinting status is stable in assisted reproduction-conceived offspring. Fertil Steril 2011; 96:1417-1423; e1419.
86. Oliver VF, Miles HL, Cutfield WS, et al. Defects in imprinting and genomewide DNA methylation are not common in the in vitro fertilization population. Fertil Steril 2012; 97:147-153.e7.