Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T09:18:58.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

33 - Oocyte epigenetics and the risks for imprinting disorders associated with assisted reproduction

from Section 5 - Pathology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2013

By
Serge McGraw  and
Jacquetta M. Trasler
Edited by
Alan Trounson ,
Roger Gosden  and
Ursula Eichenlaub-Ritter
Serge McGraw
Affiliation:
Departments of Pediatrics, Human Genetics, and Pharmacology and herapeutics, McGill University and of the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre at the Montreal Children’s Hospital, Montreal, Canada
Jacquetta M. Trasler
Affiliation:
Departments of Pediatrics, Human Genetics, and Pharmacology and herapeutics, McGill University and of the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre at the Montreal Children’s Hospital, Montreal, Canada
Alan Trounson
Affiliation:
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
Roger Gosden
Affiliation:
Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, Cornell University, New York
Ursula Eichenlaub-Ritter
Affiliation:
Universität Bielefeld, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction

As a treatment for female infertility, assisted reproductive technology (ART) commonly uses a number of treatments and manipulations, including hormonal stimulation of follicular development and ovulation, cryopreservation, in vitro maturation (IVM), in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and embryo culture, all of which could adversely affect oocyte development or function during early embryogenesis. Over the last decade, concern has been raised about possible increases in the occurrence of rare genomic imprinting disorders, in particular Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome (BWS) and Angelman syndrome (AS), in ART-conceived children. The genomic imprinting disorders seen in children conceived using ART were accompanied in many cases by a loss of maternal DNA methylation at imprinted loci. Genomic imprinting refers to the acquisition of a unique epigenetic profile in a small subset of genes during gametogenesis. This differential epigenetic mark in the gametes results in a parent-of-origin-specific expression of these imprinted genes in the offspring. Most imprinted genes exist in clusters in the genome and their allele-specific expression is regulated by sequence elements called imprinting control regions (ICRs). Genomic imprinting is under the control of epigenetic mechanisms including DNA methylation at ICRs, also known as differentially methylated domains or regions (DMDs, DMRs). One of the best studied epigenetic mechanisms, DNA methylation, is heritable and reversible and susceptible to being perturbed during development. At most ICRs, DNA methylation occurs in the female germ line and is inherited from the mother. Following fertilization, male and female gametic imprints must be maintained through preimplantation development and into adulthood. Thus any factor that affects the ability of oocytes to acquire imprints or normal epigenetic patterns during oogenesis or maintain these patterns after fertilization could potentially predispose to imprinting disorders in the offspring. This chapter reviews current data on the effects of ART on genomic imprinting in humans, along with the human and animal research that is beginning to help explain how perturbations in oocyte biology may be linked to the etiology of ART-associated epigenetic dysregulation and abnormalities in genomic imprinting.

Type
Chapter
Information
Biology and Pathology of the Oocyte
Role in Fertility, Medicine and Nuclear Reprograming
 , pp. 384 - 393
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Enklaar, T, Zabel, BU, Prawitt, D. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome: multiple molecular mechanisms. Expert Rev Mol Med 2006; 8: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horsthemke, B, Wagstaff, J. Mechanisms of imprinting of the Prader-Willi/Angelman region. Am J Med Genet A 2008; 146A: 2041–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 156–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 KCN1OT1 gene. Am J Hum Genet 2003; 72: 1338–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maher, ER, Brueton, LA, Bowdin, SC, et al. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and assisted reproduction technology (ART). J Med Genet 2003; 40: 62–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosden, R, Trasler, J, Lucifero, D, et al. Rare congenital disorders, imprinted genes, and assisted reproductive technology. Lancet 2003; 361: 1975–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowdin, S, Allen, C, Kirby, G, et al. A survey of assisted reproductive technology births and imprinting disorders. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 3237–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doornbos, ME, Maas, SM, McDonnell, J, et al. Infertility, assisted reproduction technologies and imprinting disturbances: a Dutch study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2476–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, J, Oke, K, Breheny, S, Algar, E, Amor, DJ. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and IVF: a case-control study. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 75: 526–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, CM, Segars, JHImprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Semin Reprod Med 2009; 27: 417–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutcliffe, AG, Peters, CJ, Bowdin, S, et al. Assisted reproductive therapies and imprinting disorders – a preliminary British survey. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1009–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 349–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weksberg, R, Shuman, C, Smith, AC. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2005; 137C: 12–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, D, Browdin, SC, Tee, L, et al. Clinical and molecular genetic features of Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome associated with assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 741–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossignol, S, Steunou, V, Chalas, C. 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: 902–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidegaard, O, Pinborg, A, Andersen, AN. Imprinting diseases and IVF: Danish National IVF cohort study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 950–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kallen, B, Finnstrom, O, Nygren, KG, et al. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: infant outcome after different IVF fertilization methods. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 611–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viot, G, Epelboin, S, Olivennes, F. Is there an increased risk of congenital malformations after ART: results from a prospective French long-term survey of a cohort of 15,162 children. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 Suppl 1: 154–5.Google Scholar
Cox, GF, , JBurger, , Lip, V, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection may increase the risk of imprinting defects. Am J Hum Genet 2002; 71: 162–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 218–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 289–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 1049–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, CA. Neurological aspects of the Angelman syndrome. Brain Dev 2005; 27: 88–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eggermann, T. Silver-Russell and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndromes: opposite (epi)mutations in 11p15 result in opposite clinical pictures. Horm Res 2009; 71 Suppl 2: 30–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Perkins, RM, Hoang-Xuan, MT. The Russell-Silver syndrome: a case report and brief review of the literature. Pediatr Dermatol 2002; 19: 546–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svensson, J, Björnstahl, A, Ivarsson, SA. Increased risk of Silver-Russell syndrome after in vitro fertilization? Acta Paediatr 2005; 94: 1163–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kallen, B, Finnstrom, O, Lindam, A, et al. Congenital malformations in infants born after in vitro fertilization in Sweden. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2010; 88: 137–43.Google ScholarPubMed
Bliek, J, Terhal, P, van den Bogaard, MJ, et al. Hypomethylation of the H19 gene causes not only Silver-Russell syndrome (SRS) but also isolated asymmetry or an SRS-like phenotype. Am J Hum Genet 2006; 78: 604–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagami, M, Nagai, T, Fukami, M, et al. Silver-Russell syndrome in a girl born after in vitro fertilization: partial hypermethylation at the differentially methylated region of PEG1/MEST. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007; 24: 131–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luedi, PP, Dietrich, FS, Weidman, JR, et al. Computational and experimental identification of novel imprinted genes. Genome Res 2007; 17: 1723–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coan, PM, Burton, GJ, Ferguson-Smith, AC. Imprinted genes in the placenta – a review. Placenta 2005; 26 (Suppl A) S10–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkins-Haug, L. Epigenetics and assisted reproduction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2009; 21: 201–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanber, D, Buiting, K, Zeschnigk, M, et al. Low frequency of imprinting defects in ICSI children born small for gestational age. Eur J Hum Genet 2009; 17: 22–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filipponi, D, Feil, R. Perturbation of genomic imprinting in oligospermia. Epigenetics 2009; 4(1): 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 471–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 371–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katari, S, Turan, N, Bibikova, M, et al. DNA methylation and gene expression differences in children conceivedin vitro or in vivo. Hum Mol Genet 2009; 18: 3769–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reik, W, Dean, W, Walter, J. Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Science 2001; 293: 1089–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horsthemke, B, Ludwig, M. Assisted reproduction: the epigenetic perspective. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11: 473–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucifero, D, Mann, MRW, Bartolomei, M, et al. Gene-specific timing and epigenetic memory in oocyte imprinting. Hum Mol Genet 2004; 3: 839–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obata, Y, Kono, T. Maternal primary imprinting is established at a specific time for each gene throughout oocyte growth. J Biol Chem 2002; 277: 5285–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiura, H, Obata, Y, Komiyama, J, et al. Oocyte growth-dependent progression of maternal imprinting in mice. Genes Cells 2006; 11: 353–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geuns, E, De Rycke, M, Van Steirteghem, A, et al. Methylation imprints of the imprint control region of the SNRPN-gene in human gametes and preimplantation embryos. Hum Mol Genet 2003; 12: 2873–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geuns, E, Hilver, P, Van Steirteghem, A, et al. Methylation analysis of KVDMR1 in human oocytes. J Med Genet 2007; 44: 144–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sato, A, Otsu, E, Negishi, H, et al. Aberrant DNA methylation of imprinted loci in superovulated oocytes. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 26–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khoueiry, R, Ibala-Rhomdane, S, Méry, L, et al. Dynamic CpG methylation of the KCNQ1OT1 gene during maturation of human oocytes. J Med Genet 2008; 45(9): 583–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourghol, N, Lornage, J, Blachère, T, Garret, AS, Lefèvre, A. Epigenetic status of the H19 locus in human oocytes following in vitro maturation. Genomics 2006; 87: 417–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geuns, E, De Temmerman, N, Hilven, P, et al. Methylation analysis of the intergenic differentially methylated region of DLK1-GTL2 in human. Eur J Hum Genet 2007; 15: 352–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denomme, MM, Zhang, L, Mann, MR. Embryonic imprinting perturbations do not originate from superovulation-induced defects in DNA methylation acquisition. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 734–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerjean, A, Couvert, P, Hearns, T, et al. In vitro follicular growth affects oocyte imprinting establishment in mice. Eur J Hum Genet 2003; 11: 493–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anckaert, E, Adriaenssens, T, Romero, S, et al. Unaltered imprinting establishment of key imprinted genes in mouse oocytes after in vitro follicle under variable follicle stimulating hormone exposure. Int J Dev Biol 2009; 53: 541–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anckaert, E, Adriaenssens, T, Romero, S, et al. 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: 666–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 pre-antral follicles. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 3025–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Montfoort, AP, Hanssen, LL, de Sutter, P, et al. Assisted reproduction treatment and epigenetic inheritance. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18: 171–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wossidlo, M, Nakamura, T, Lepikhov, K, et al. 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine in the mammalian zygote is linked with epigenetic reprogramming. Nat Commun 2011; 2:241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, ZD, Chan, MM, Mikkelsen, TS, et al. A unique regulatory phase of DNA methylation in the early mammalian embryo. Nature 2012; 484: 339–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santos, F, Hyslop, L, Stojkovic, P, et al. Evaluation of epigenetic marks in human embryos derived from IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 2387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. J Hum Mol Genet 2010; 19: 36–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fortier, AL, Lopes, FL, Darricarrere, N, et al. Superovulation alters the expression of imprinted genes in the midgestation mouse placenta. Hum Mol Genet 2008; 17: 1653–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Waal, E, Yamazaki, Y, Ingale, P, et al. Gonadotropin stimulation contributes to an increased incidence of epimutations in ICSI-derived mice. Hum Mol Genet 2012; 21: 4460–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aston, KI, Peterson, CM, Carrell, DT. Monozygotic twinning associated with assisted reproductive technologies: a review. Reproduction 2008; 136: 377–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, HJ, Lee, JRL, Jee, BC, et al. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2381–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weksberg, R, Shuman, C, Caluseriu, O, et al. Discordant KCNQ1OT1 imprinting in sets of monozygotic twins discordant for Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Hum Mol Genet 2002; 11: 1317–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bestor, TH. Imprinting errors and developmental asymmetry. Phil Trans Royal Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2003; 358: 1411–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reik, W, Walter, J. Genomic imprinting: parental influence on the genome. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2(1): 21–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smallwood, SA, Kelsey, G. De novo DNA methylation: a germ cell perspective. Trends Genet 2012; 28(1): 33–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×