4.7 Article

Mediation Analysis Supports a Causal Relationship between Maternal Hyperglycemia and Placental DNA Methylation Variations at the Leptin Gene Locus and Cord Blood Leptin Levels

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21010329

关键词

childhood obesity; skinfolds thickness; BMI; epigenetics; fetal programming; maternal hyperglycemia; pregnancy

资金

  1. American Diabetes Association [1-15-ACE-26]
  2. Fonds de recherche du Quebec en sante (FRSQ) [20697]
  3. Canadian Institute of Health Research [MOP 115071]
  4. Diabete Quebec grants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Changes in fetal DNA methylation (DNAm) of the leptin (LEP) gene have been associated with exposure to maternal hyperglycemia, but their links with childhood obesity risk are still unclear. We investigated the association between maternal hyperglycemia, placental LEP DNAm (25 5 '-C-phosphate-G-3 ' (CpG) sites), neonatal leptinemia, and adiposity (i.e., BMI and skinfold thickness (ST) (subscapular (SS) + triceps (TR) skinfold measures, and the ratio of SS:TR) at 3-years-old, in 259 mother-child dyads, from Gen3G birth cohort. We conducted multivariate linear analyses adjusted for gestational age at birth, sex of the child, age at follow-up, and cellular heterogeneity. We assessed the causal role of DNAm in the association between maternal glycemia and childhood outcomes, using mediation analysis. We found three CpGs associated with neonatal leptinemia (p <= 0.002). Of these, cg05136031 and cg15758240 were also associated with BMI (beta = -2.69, p = 0.05) and fat distribution (beta = -0.581, p = 0.05) at 3-years-old, respectively. Maternal glycemia was associated with DNAm at cg15758240 (beta = -0.01, p = 0.04) and neonatal leptinemia (beta = 0.19, p = 0.004). DNAm levels at cg15758240 mediates 0.8% of the association between maternal glycemia and neonatal leptinemia (p < 0.001). Our results support that DNAm regulation of the leptin pathway in response to maternal glycemia might be involved in programming adiposity in childhood.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据