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-6dbcb7884d-64ff6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T06:27:42.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 14 - Epigenetics and Assisted Reproductive Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2022

By
Aafke P.A. van Montfoort
Edited by
Stéphane Viville  and
Karen D. Sermon
Stéphane Viville
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Génétique Médicale de Strasbourg and Laboratoire de diagnostic génétique, Strasbourg
Karen D. Sermon
Affiliation:
Reproduction and Genetics Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Get access

Summary

Since the birth of the first baby via in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 1978, there has been concern about the safety of IVF and other assisted reproduction technology (ART) procedures for the health of ART-conceived children. Data show that ART singletons are at increased risk for adverse perinatal outcomes such as low birthweight and being small for gestational age, and congenital malformations [1]. The biological mechanism behind these risks is mainly unresolved. Since the publication of a few case reports on the incidence of rare imprinting disorders such as Angelman and Beckwith–Wiedemann syndromes in ART-conceived children, epigenetic deregulation has gained increasing attention as a possible common cause for the adverse outcomes. This led to an expansion of ART literature on epigenetic effects. In this chapter, I focus on the current knowledge of epigenetic disturbances in humans, reported after ART in general and in relation to specific ART components, and the difficulties encountered in these kinds of studies. When needed, animal studies will also be mentioned. The subfertility of the population as a possible cause for the epigenetic deregulation is also taken into consideration. Finally, I discuss whether epigenetic effects can be related to the reported health outcome in ART children and if these possible derangements can affect their health at adult age.

Type
Chapter
Information
Textbook of Human Reproductive Genetics , pp. 202 - 218
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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

Berntsen, S, Soderstrom-Anttila, V, Wennerholm, UB, et al. The health of children conceived by ART: “the chicken or the egg?” Hum Reprod Update 2019;25:137–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, CW, Demond, H, Kelsey, G. Epigenetic regulation in development: is the mouse a good model for the human? Hum Reprod Update 2018;24:556–76.Google Scholar
Zhu, P, Guo, H, Ren, Y, et al. Single-cell DNA methylome sequencing of human preimplantation embryos. Nat Genet 2018;50:12–19.Google Scholar
Fleming, TP, Watkins, AJ, Velazquez, MA, et al. Origins of lifetime health around the time of conception: causes and consequences. Lancet 2018;391:1842–52.Google Scholar
van Montfoort, AP, Hanssen, LL, de Sutter, P, et al. Assisted reproduction treatment and epigenetic inheritance. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:171–97.Google Scholar
DeAngelis, AM, Martini, AE, Owen, CM. Assisted reproductive technology and epigenetics. Semin Reprod Med 2018;36:221–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiura, H, Okae, H, Miyauchi, N, et al. Characterization of DNA methylation errors in patients with imprinting disorders conceived by assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod 2012;27:2541–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavalli, G, Heard, E. Advances in epigenetics link genetics to the environment and disease. Nature 2019;571:489–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, KL, Rivera, RM. The effects of superovulation and reproductive aging on the epigenome of the oocyte and embryo. Mol Reprod Dev 2018;85:90–105.Google Scholar
Jenkins, TG, James, ER, Aston, KI, et al. Age-associated sperm DNA methylation patterns do not directly persist trans-generationally. Epigenetics Chromatin 2019;12:74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, H, Hiura, H, John, RM, et al. DNA methylation errors at imprinted loci after assisted conception originate in the parental sperm. Eur J Hum Genet 2009;17:1582–91.Google Scholar
Sato, A, Otsu, E, Negishi, H, Utsunomiya, T, Arima, T. Aberrant DNA methylation of imprinted loci in superovulated oocytes. Hum Reprod 2007;22:26–35.Google Scholar
Al-Khtib, M, Perret, A, Khoueiry, R, et al. Vitrification at the germinal vesicle stage does not affect the methylation profile of H19 and KCNQ1OT1 imprinting centers in human oocytes subsequently matured in vitro. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1955–60.Google Scholar
Guo, H, Zhu, P, Yan, L, et al. The DNA methylation landscape of human early embryos. Nature 2014;511:606–10.Google Scholar
White, CR, Denomme, MM, Tekpetey, FR, et al. High frequency of imprinted methylation errors in human preimplantation embryos. Sci Rep 2015;5:17311.Google Scholar
Velker, BA, Denomme, MM, Mann, MRW. Embryo culture and epigenetics. Methods Mol Biol 2012;912:399–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mani, S, Mainigi, M. Embryo culture conditions and the epigenome. Semin Reprod Med 2018;36:211–20.Google Scholar
Zandstra, H, Van Montfoort, AP, Dumoulin, JC. Does the type of culture medium used influence birthweight of children born after IVF? Hum Reprod 2015;30:530–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feuer, S, Liu, X, Donjacour, A, et al. Transcriptional signatures throughout development: the effects of mouse embryo manipulation in vitro. Reproduction 2017;153(1):107–22.Google Scholar
Mani, S, Ghosh, J, Coutifaris, C, Sapienza, C, Mainigi, M. Epigenetic changes and assisted reproductive technologies. Epigenetics 2020;15:12–25.Google Scholar
Ghosh, J, Mainigi, M, Coutifaris, C, Sapienza, C. Outlier DNA methylation levels as an indicator of environmental exposure and risk of undesirable birth outcome. Hum Mol Genet 2016;25:123–9.Google Scholar
Mulder, CL, Wattimury, TM, Jongejan, A, et al. Comparison of DNA methylation patterns of parentally imprinted genes in placenta derived from IVF conceptions in two different culture media. Hum Reprod 2020;35:516–28.Google Scholar
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;18:3769–78.Google Scholar
Melamed, N, Choufani, S, Wilkins-Haug, LE, et al. Comparison of genome-wide and gene-specific DNA methylation between ART and naturally conceived pregnancies. Epigenetics 2015;10:474–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estill, MS, Bolnick, JM, Waterland, RA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology alters deoxyribonucleic acid methylation profiles in bloodspots of newborn infants. Fertil Steril 2016;106:629–39.e10.Google Scholar
El Hajj, N, Haertle, L, Dittrich, M, et al. DNA methylation signatures in cord blood of ICSI children. Hum Reprod 2017;32:1761–9.Google Scholar
Gentilini, D, Somigliana, E, Pagliardini, L, et al. Multifactorial analysis of the stochastic epigenetic variability in cord blood confirmed an impact of common behavioral and environmental factors but not of in vitro conception. Clin Epigenetics 2018;10:77.Google Scholar
Choufani, S, Turinsky, AL, Melamed, N, et al. Impact of assisted reproduction, infertility, sex and paternal factors on the placental DNA methylome. Hum Mol Genet 2019;28:372–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novakovic, B, Lewis, S, Halliday, J, et al. Assisted reproductive technologies are associated with limited epigenetic variation at birth that largely resolves by adulthood. Nat Commun 2019;10:3922.Google Scholar
Miles, HL, Hofman, PL, Peek, J, et al. In vitro fertilization improves childhood growth and metabolism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92:3441–5.Google Scholar
Guo, XY, Liu, XM, Jin, L, et al. Cardiovascular and metabolic profiles of offspring conceived by assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2017;107:622–631.e5.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×