Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:56:06.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of in vitro fertilization and embryo culture on the embryo epigenetic constituents and the possible consequences in the bovine model

Part of: DOHAD & IVF

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2017

M.-A. Sirard
M.-A. Sirard*
Affiliation:
Centre de Recherche en Reproduction, Développement et Santé Intergénérationnelle, Département des Sciences Animales, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
*
*Address for correspondence: M.-A. Sirard, Centre de Recherche en Reproduction, Développement et Santé Intergénérationnelle, Département des Sciences Animales, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada G1V 0A6. (Email marc-andre.sirard@fsaa.ulaval.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Medically assisted reproductive technologies, such as in vitro embryo production, are increasingly being used to palliate infertility. Eggs are produced following a hormonal regimen that stimulates the ovaries to produce a large number of oocytes. Collected oocytes are then fertilized in vitro and allowed to develop in vitro until they are either frozen or transferred to mothers. There are controversial reports on the adverse impacts of these technologies on early embryos and their potential long-term effects. Using newly developed technological platforms that enable global gene expression and global DNA methylation profiling, we evaluated gene perturbations caused by such artificial procedures. We know that cells in the early embryo produce all cells in the body and are able to respond to their in vitro environment. However, it is not known whether gene perturbations are part of a normal response to the environment or are due to distress and will have long-term impacts. While the mouse is an established genetic model used for quality control of culture media in clinics, the bovine is a large mono-ovulating mammal with similar embryonic kinetics as humans during the studied developmental window. These model systems are critical to understand the effects of assisted reproduction without the confounding impact of infertility and without the limitations imposed by the scarcity of donated human samples and ethical issues. The data presented in this review come mostly from our own experimentation, publications, and collaborations. Together they demonstrate that the in vitro environment has a significant impact on embryos at the transcriptomic level and at the DNA methylation level.

Keywords

bovinecloningDNA methylationepigeneticembryoIVF
Type
Review
Information
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease , Volume 8 , Issue 4: Themed Issue: Assisted Reproductive Treatments (ART) and DOHAD , August 2017 , pp. 411 - 417
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and the International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease 2017 

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

1. Davies, MJ, Moore, VM, Willson, KJ, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366, 1803–1813.Google Scholar
2. Bousquet, D, Brackett, BG. Penetration of zona-free hamster ova by bull sperm after frozen storage. Theriogenology. 1981; 15, 117.Google Scholar
3. Sirard, MA, Lambert, RD. In vitro fertilization of bovine follicular oocytes obtained by laparoscopy. Biol Reprod. 1985; 33, 487–494.Google Scholar
4. Sirard, MA, Lambert, RD. Birth of calves after in vitro fertilisation using laparoscopy and rabbit oviduct incubation of zygotes. Vet Rec. 1986; 119, 167–169.Google Scholar
5. Sirard, MA, Parrish, JJ, Ware, CB, Leibfried-Rutledge, ML, First, NL. The culture of bovine oocytes to obtain developmentally competent embryos. Biol Reprod. 1988; 39, 546–552.Google Scholar
6. Farin, CE, Farin, PW, Piedrahita, JA. Development of fetuses from in vitro-produced and cloned bovine embryos. J Anim Sci. 2004; 82(E-Suppl.), E53–E62.Google Scholar
7. Mapletoft, RJ, Bo, GA. The evolution of improved and simplified superovulation protocols in cattle. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2011; 24, 278–283.Google Scholar
8. de Mello Bianchi, PH, Serafini, P, Monteiro da Rocha, A, et al. Review: follicular waves in the human ovary: a new physiological paradigm for novel ovarian stimulation protocols. Reprod Sci. 2010; 17, 1067–1076.Google Scholar
9. Alabert, C, Groth, A. Chromatin replication and epigenome maintenance. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2012; 13, 153–167.Google Scholar
10. Lowdon, RF, Jang, HS, Wang, T. Evolution of epigenetic regulation in vertebrate genomes. Trends Genet. 2016; 32, 269–283.Google Scholar
11. 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.Google Scholar
12. Pinborg, A, Wennerholm, UB, Romundstad, LB, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19, 87–104.Google Scholar
13. Seggers, J, Haadsma, ML, La Bastide-Van Gemert, S, et al. Is ovarian hyperstimulation associated with higher blood pressure in 4-year-old IVF offspring? Part I: multivariable regression analysis. Hum Reprod.. 2014; 29, 502–509.Google Scholar
14. Melamed, N, Choufani, S, Wilkins-Haug, LE, Koren, G, Weksberg, R. Comparison of genome-wide and gene-specific DNA methylation between ART and naturally conceived pregnancies. Epigenetics. 2015; 10, 474–483.Google Scholar
15. van Montfoort, AP, Hanssen, LL, de Sutter, P, et al. Assisted reproduction treatment and epigenetic inheritance. Hum Reprod Update. 2012; 18, 171–197.Google Scholar
16. Miles, JR, Farin, CE, Rodriguez, KF, Alexander, JE, Farin, PW. Angiogenesis and morphometry of bovine placentas in late gestation from embryos produced in vivo or in vitro. Biol Reprod. 2004; 71, 1919–1926.Google Scholar
17. Wang, L, Zhang, J, Duan, J, et al. Programming and inheritance of parental DNA methylomes in mammals. Cell. 2014; 157, 979–991.Google Scholar
18. Rooke, JA, McEvoy, TG, Ashworth, CJ, et al. Ovine fetal development is more sensitive to perturbation by the presence of serum in embryo culture before rather than after compaction. Theriogenology. 2007; 67, 639–647.Google Scholar
19. Mansouri-Attia, N, Sandra, O, Aubert, J, et al. Endometrium as an early sensor of in vitro embryo manipulation technologies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009; 106, 5687–5692.Google Scholar
20. Sandra, O, Mansouri-Attia, N, Lea, RG. Novel aspects of endometrial function: a biological sensor of embryo quality and driver of pregnancy success. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2011; 24, 68–79.Google Scholar
21. Jablonka, E, Lamb, MJ. The inheritance of acquired epigenetic variations. Int J Epidemiol. 2015; 44, 1094–1103.Google Scholar
22. Jablonka, E, Raz, G. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: prevalence, mechanisms, and implications for the study of heredity and evolution. Q Rev Biol. 2009; 84, 131–176.Google Scholar
23. Hanson, MA, Godfrey, KM. Genetics: epigenetic mechanisms underlying type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2015; 11, 261–262.Google Scholar
24. Fullston, T, Shehadeh, H, Sandeman, LY, et al. Female offspring sired by diet induced obese male mice display impaired blastocyst development with molecular alterations to their ovaries, oocytes and cumulus cells. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015; 32, 725–735.Google Scholar
25. Walsh, SW, Mossa, F, Butler, ST, et al. Heritability and impact of environmental effects during pregnancy on antral follicle count in cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2014; 97, 4503–4511.Google Scholar
26. Chan, KA, Tsoulis, MW, Sloboda, DM. Early-life nutritional effects on the female reproductive system. J Endocrinol. 2015; 224, R45–R62.Google Scholar
27. Mossa, F, Carter, F, Walsh, SW, et al. Maternal undernutrition in cows impairs ovarian and cardiovascular systems in their offspring. Biol Reprod. 2013; 88, 92.Google Scholar
28. Parr, MH, Crowe, MA, Lonergan, P, et al. The concurrent and carry over effects of long term changes in energy intake before insemination on pregnancy per artificial insemination in heifers. Anim Reprod Sci. 2015; 157, 87–94.Google Scholar
29. Jimenez-Krassel, F, Scheetz, DM, Neuder, LM, et al. Concentration of anti-mullerian hormone in dairy heifers is positively associated with productive herd life. J Dairy Sci. 2015; 98, 3036–3045.Google Scholar
30. Gonzalez-Recio, O, Ugarte, E, Bach, A. Trans-generational effect of maternal lactation during pregnancy: a Holstein cow model. PLoS One.. 2012; 7, e51816.Google Scholar
31. Seli, E, Robert, C, Sirard, MA. OMICS in assisted reproduction: possibilities and pitfalls. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010; 16, 513–530.Google Scholar
32. Shojaei Saadi, HA, O’Doherty, AM, Gagne, D, et al. An integrated platform for bovine DNA methylome analysis suitable for small samples. BMC Genomics.. 2014; 15, 451.Google Scholar
33. MacDonald, WA, Mann, MR. Epigenetic regulation of genomic imprinting from germ line to preimplantation. Mol Reprod Dev. 2014; 81, 126–140.Google Scholar
34. Gad, A, Besenfelder, U, Rings, F, et al. Effect of reproductive tract environment following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation treatment on embryo development and global transcriptome profile of blastocysts: implications for animal breeding and human assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod.. 2011; 26, 1693–1707.Google Scholar
35. Salilew-Wondim, D, Fournier, E, Hoelker, M, et al. Genome-wide DNA methylation patterns of bovine blastocysts developed in vivo from embryos completed different stages of development in vitro. PLoS One.. 2015; 10, e0140467.Google Scholar
36. Robert, C, Nieminen, J, Dufort, I, et al. Combining resources to obtain a comprehensive survey of the bovine embryo transcriptome through deep sequencing and microarrays. Mol Reprod Dev. 2011; 78, 651–664.Google Scholar
37. Gad, A, Hoelker, M, Besenfelder, U, et al. Molecular mechanisms and pathways involved in bovine embryonic genome activation and their regulation by alternative in vivo and in vitro culture conditions. Biol Reprod. 2012; 87, 100.Google Scholar
38. Amin, A, Gad, A, Salilew-Wondim, D, et al. Bovine embryo survival under oxidative-stress conditions is associated with activity of the NRF2-mediated oxidative-stress-response pathway. Mol Reprod Dev. 2014; 81, 497–513.Google Scholar
39. Gaspar, RC, Arnold, DR, Correa, CA, et al. Oxygen tension affects histone remodeling of in vitro-produced embryos in a bovine model. Theriogenology. 2015; 83, 1408–1415.Google Scholar
40. Cagnone, GL, Dufort, I, Vigneault, C, Sirard, MA. Differential gene expression profile in bovine blastocysts resulting from hyperglycemia exposure during early cleavage stages. Biol Reprod. 2012; 86, 50.Google Scholar
41. Cagnone, GL, Sirard, MA. Transcriptomic signature to oxidative stress exposure at the time of embryonic genome activation in bovine blastocysts. Mol Reprod Dev. 2013; 80, 297–314.Google Scholar
42. Cagnone, G, Sirard, MA. The impact of exposure to serum lipids during in vitro culture on the transcriptome of bovine blastocysts. Theriogenology. 2014; 81, 712–722, e711–e713.Google Scholar
43. Cagnone, GL, Sirard, MA. The embryonic stress response to in vitro culture: insight from genomic analysis. Reproduction. 2016; 152, R247-R261.Google Scholar
44. Chu, T, Dufort, I, Sirard, MA. Effect of ovarian stimulation on oocyte gene expression in cattle. Theriogenology. 2012; 77, 1928–1938.Google Scholar
45. Labrecque, R, Sirard, MA. The study of mammalian oocyte competence by transcriptome analysis: progress and challenges. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014; 20, 103–116.Google Scholar
46. Labrecque, R, Vigneault, C, Blondin, P, Sirard, MA. Gene expression analysis of bovine oocytes with high developmental competence obtained from FSH-stimulated animals. Mol Reprod Dev. 2013; 80, 428–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Page-Lariviere, F, Sirard, MA. Spatiotemporal expression of DNA demethylation enzymes and histone demethylases in bovine embryos. Cell Reprogram. 2014; 16, 40–53.Google Scholar
48. Dean, W, Santos, F, Stojkovic, M, et al. Conservation of methylation reprogramming in mammalian development: aberrant reprogramming in cloned embryos. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001; 98, 13734–13738.Google Scholar
49. Shojaei Saadi, HA, Gagne, D, Fournier, E, et al. Responses of bovine early embryos to S-adenosyl methionine supplementation in culture. Epigenomics. 2016; 8, 1039–1060.Google Scholar
50. Grigoriu, A, Ferreira, JC, Choufani, S, et al. Cell specific patterns of methylation in the human placenta. Epigenetics. 2011; 6, 368–379.Google Scholar
51. Su, JM, Yang, B, Wang, YS, et al. Expression and methylation status of imprinted genes in placentas of deceased and live cloned transgenic calves. Theriogenology. 2011; 75, 1346–1359.Google Scholar
52. Farin, PW, Farin, CE. Transfer of bovine embryos produced in vivo or in vitro: survival and fetal development. Biol Reprod. 1995; 52, 676–682.Google Scholar
53. Young, LE, Sinclair, KD, Wilmut, I. Large offspring syndrome in cattle and sheep. Rev Reprod. 1998; 3, 155–163.Google Scholar
54. McEvoy, TG, Ashworth, CJ, Rooke, JA, Sinclair, KD. Consequences of manipulating gametes and embryos of ruminant species. Reprod Suppl. 2003; 61, 167–182.Google Scholar
55. Behboodi, E, Anderson, GB, BonDurant, RH, et al. Birth of large calves that developed from in vitro-derived bovine embryos. Theriogenology. 1995; 44, 227–232.Google Scholar
56. Thompson, JG, Gardner, DK, Pugh, PA, McMillan, WH, Tervit, HR. Lamb birth weight is affected by culture system utilized during in vitro pre-elongation development of ovine embryos. Biol Reprod. 1995; 53, 1385–1391.Google Scholar
57. Wilmut, I, Schnieke, AE, McWhir, J, Kind, AJ, Campbell, KH. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature. 1997; 385, 810–813.Google Scholar
58. Smith, GD, Monteiro da Rocha, A. Advances in embryo culture systems. Semin Reprod Med. 2012; 30, 214–221.Google Scholar
59. Brisville, AC, Fecteau, G, Boysen, S, et al. Respiratory disease in neonatal cloned calves. J Vet Intern Med. 2011; 25, 373–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60. Wang, H, Zhang, JX, Zhao, MB, et al. Production and health assessment of second-generation cloned Holstein cows derived by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Anim Reprod Sci. 2011; 126, 11–18.Google Scholar
61. Hosseini, SM, Dufort, I, Nieminen, J, et al. Epigenetic modification with trichostatin A does not correct specific errors of somatic cell nuclear transfer at the transcriptomic level; highlighting the non-random nature of oocyte-mediated reprogramming errors. BMC Genomics.. 2016; 17, 16.Google Scholar
62. Willadsen, SM, Polge, C. Attempts to produce monozygotic quadruplets in cattle by blastomere separation. Vet Rec. 1981; 108, 211–213.Google Scholar
63. Sinclair, KD, Corr, SA, Gutierrez, CG, et al. Healthy ageing of cloned sheep. Nat Commun. 2016; 7, 12359.Google Scholar