Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2009; 27(5): 403-408
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1237428
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Epigenetic Transgenerational Effects of Endocrine Disruptors on Male Reproduction

Carlos M. Guerrero-Bosagna1 , Michael K. Skinner1
  • 1Center for Reproductive Biology, School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 August 2009 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals generally function as steroid receptor signaling antagonists or agonists that influence development to promote adult-onset disease. Exposure to the endocrine disruptors during the initiation of male reproductive tract development interferes with the normal hormonal signaling and formation of male reproductive organs. In particular, exposure to the endocrine disruptor vinclozolin promotes transgenerational transmission of adult-onset disease states such as male infertility, increased frequencies of tumors, prostate disease, kidney diseases, and immune abnormalities that develop as males age. An epigenetic change in the germ line would be involved in the transgenerational transmission of these induced phenotypes. Nevertheless, other studies have also reported transgenerational transmission of induced epigenetic changes, without altering the germ line. Here we propose a nomenclature to help clarify both cases of transgenerational epigenetic transmission. An intrinsic epigenetic transgenerational process would require a germ-line involvement, a permanent alteration in the germ cell epigenome, and only one exposure to the environmental factor. An extrinsic epigenetic transgenerational process would involve an epigenetic alteration in a somatic tissue and require exposure at each generation to maintain the transgenerational phenotype.

KEYWORDS

Transgenerational - epigenetic - endocrine disruptors - germ line - DNA methylation

REFERENCES

  • 1 McLachlan J A. Environmental signaling: what embryos and evolution teach us about endocrine disrupting chemicals.  Endocr Rev. 2001;  22(3) 319-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gallo D, Cantelmo F, Distefano M et al.. Reproductive effects of dietary soy in female Wistar rats.  Food Chem Toxicol. 1999;  37(5) 493-502
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Guerrero-Bosagna C M, Sabat P, Valdovinos F S, Valladares L E, Clark S J. Epigenetic and phenotypic changes result from a continuous pre and post natal dietary exposure to phytoestrogens in an experimental population of mice.  BMC Physiol. 2008;  8 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bullock B C, Newbold R R, McLachlan J A. Lesions of testis and epididymis associated with prenatal diethylstilbestrol exposure.  Environ Health Perspect. 1988;  77 29-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Newbold R R. Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES).  Fertil Steril. 2008;  89(2, suppl) e55-e56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Newbold R R, Hanson R B, Jefferson W N, Bullock B C, Haseman J, McLachlan J A. Proliferative lesions and reproductive tract tumors in male descendants of mice exposed developmentally to diethylstilbestrol.  Carcinogenesis. 2000;  21(7) 1355-1363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Markey C M, Coombs M A, Sonnenschein C, Soto A M. Mammalian development in a changing environment: exposure to endocrine disruptors reveals the developmental plasticity of steroid-hormone target organs.  Evol Dev. 2003;  5(1) 67-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 vom Saal F S, Cooke P S, Buchanan D L et al.. A physiologically based approach to the study of bisphenol A and other estrogenic chemicals on the size of reproductive organs, daily sperm production, and behavior.  Toxicol Ind Health. 1998;  14(1–2) 239-260
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gray Jr L E, Ostby J, Furr J, Price M, Veeramachaneni D N, Parks L. Perinatal exposure to the phthalates DEHP, BBP, and DINP, but not DEP, DMP, or DOTP, alters sexual differentiation of the male rat.  Toxicol Sci. 2000;  58(2) 350-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gray Jr L E, Wolf C, Lambright C et al.. Administration of potentially antiandrogenic pesticides (procymidone, linuron, iprodione, chlozolinate, p,p′-DDE, and ketoconazole) and toxic substances (dibutyl- and diethylhexyl phthalate, PCB 169, and ethane dimethane sulphonate) during sexual differentiation produces diverse profiles of reproductive malformations in the male rat.  Toxicol Ind Health. 1999;  15(1–2) 94-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Howdeshell K L, Rider C V, Wilson V S, Gray Jr L E. Mechanisms of action of phthalate esters, individually and in combination, to induce abnormal reproductive development in male laboratory rats.  Environ Res. 2008;  108(2) 168-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Anway M D, Cupp A S, Uzumcu M, Skinner M K. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of endocrine disruptors and male fertility.  Science. 2005;  308(5727) 1466-1469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Anway M D, Leathers C, Skinner M K. Endocrine disruptor vinclozolin induced epigenetic transgenerational adult-onset disease.  Endocrinology. 2006;  147(12) 5515-5523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Anway M D, Memon M A, Uzumcu M, Skinner M K. Transgenerational effect of the endocrine disruptor vinclozolin on male spermatogenesis.  J Androl. 2006;  27(6) 868-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Anway M D, Rekow S S, Skinner M K. Comparative anti-androgenic actions of vinclozolin and flutamide on transgenerational adult onset disease and spermatogenesis.  Reprod Toxicol. 2008;  26(2) 100-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Nilsson E E, Anway M D, Stanfield J, Skinner M K. Transgenerational epigenetic effects of the endocrine disruptor vinclozolin on pregnancies and female adult onset disease.  Reproduction. 2008;  135(5) 713-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Skinner M K, Anway M D. Seminiferous cord formation and germ-cell programming: epigenetic transgenerational actions of endocrine disruptors.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005;  1061 18-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Danzo B J. The effects of environmental hormones on reproduction.  Cell Mol Life Sci. 1998;  54(11) 1249-1264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Extavour C G, Akam M. Mechanisms of germ cell specification across the metazoans: epigenesis and preformation.  Development. 2003;  130(24) 5869-5884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cupp A S, Uzumcu M, Suzuki H, Dirks K, Phillips B, Skinner M K. Effect of transient embryonic in vivo exposure to the endocrine disruptor methoxychlor on embryonic and postnatal testis development.  J Androl. 2003;  24(5) 736-745
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Uzumcu M, Suzuki H, Skinner M K. Effect of the anti-androgenic endocrine disruptor vinclozolin on embryonic testis cord formation and postnatal testis development and function.  Reprod Toxicol. 2004;  18(6) 765-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Skinner M K. What is an epigenetic transgenerational phenotype? F3 or F2.  Reprod Toxicol. 2008;  25(1) 2-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kelce W R, Monosson E, Gamcsik M P, Laws S C, Gray Jr L E. Environmental hormone disruptors: evidence that vinclozolin developmental toxicity is mediated by antiandrogenic metabolites.  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1994;  126(2) 276-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wong C, Kelce W R, Sar M, Wilson E M. Androgen receptor antagonist versus agonist activities of the fungicide vinclozolin relative to hydroxyflutamide.  J Biol Chem. 1995;  270(34) 19998-20003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 André S M, Markowski V P. Learning deficits expressed as delayed extinction of a conditioned running response following perinatal exposure to vinclozolin.  Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2006;  28(4) 482-488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Crews D, Gore A C, Hsu T S et al.. Transgenerational epigenetic imprints on mate preference.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;  104(14) 5942-5946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ottinger M A, Lavoie E, Thompson N et al.. Neuroendocrine and behavioral effects of embryonic exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in birds.  Brain Res Rev. 2008;  57(2) 376-385
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ottinger M A, Quinn Jr M J, Lavoie E et al.. Consequences of endocrine disrupting chemicals on reproductive endocrine function in birds: establishing reliable end points of exposure.  Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2005;  29(2) 411-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Skinner M K, Anway M D, Savenkova M I, Gore A C, Crews D. Transgenerational epigenetic programming of the brain transcriptome and anxiety behavior.  PLoS One. 2008;  3(11) e3745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Anway M D, Rekow S S, Skinner M K. Transgenerational epigenetic programming of the embryonic testis transcriptome.  Genomics. 2008;  91(1) 30-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lewis S E. Life cycle of the mammalian germ cell: implication for spontaneous mutation frequencies.  Teratology. 1999;  59(4) 205-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Russell L B, Hunsicker P R, Cacheiro N L, Bangham J W, Russell W L, Shelby M D. Chlorambucil effectively induces deletion mutations in mouse germ cells.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989;  86(10) 3704-3708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Russell L B, Hunsicker P R, Shelby M D. Melphalan, a second chemical for which specific-locus mutation induction in the mouse is maximum in early spermatids.  Mutat Res. 1992;  282(3) 151-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 MacPhee D G. Epigenetics and epimutagens: some new perspectives on cancer, germ line effects and endocrine disrupters.  Mutat Res. 1998;  400(1–2) 369-379
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Surani M A. Reprogramming of genome function through epigenetic inheritance.  Nature. 2001;  414(6859) 122-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Van Speybroeck L. From epigenesis to epigenetics: the case of C. H. Waddington.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002;  981 61-81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Waddington C H. Principles of Embryology. London, United Kingdom; Allen & Unwin 1956
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Jablonka E, Matzke M, Thieffry D, Van Speybroeck L. The genome in context: biologists and philosophers on epigenetics.  Bioessays. 2002;  24(4) 392-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Laird P W, Jaenisch R. The role of DNA methylation in cancer genetic and epigenetics.  Annu Rev Genet. 1996;  30 441-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Singal R, Ginder G D. DNA methylation.  Blood. 1999;  93(12) 4059-4070
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wallace J A, Orr-Weaver T L. Replication of heterochromatin: insights into mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance.  Chromosoma. 2005;  114(6) 389-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Craig J M. Heterochromatin—many flavours, common themes.  Bioessays. 2005;  27(1) 17-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Margueron R, Trojer P, Reinberg D. The key to development: interpreting the histone code?.  Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2005;  15(2) 163-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Fuks F. DNA methylation and histone modifications: teaming up to silence genes.  Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2005;  15(5) 490-495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Kim V N. Small RNAs just got bigger: Piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs) in mammalian testes.  Genes Dev. 2006;  20(15) 1993-1997
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Chen Z X, Riggs A D. Maintenance and regulation of DNA methylation patterns in mammals.  Biochem Cell Biol. 2005;  83(4) 438-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Reik W, Dean W, Walter J. Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development.  Science. 2001;  293(5532) 1089-1093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Hajkova P, Erhardt S, Lane N et al.. Epigenetic reprogramming in mouse primordial germ cells.  Mech Dev. 2002;  117(1–2) 15-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Constância M, Pickard B, Kelsey G, Reik W. Imprinting mechanisms.  Genome Res. 1998;  8(9) 881-900
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Guerrero-Bosagna C, Sabat P, Valladares L. Environmental signaling and evolutionary change: can exposure of pregnant mammals to environmental estrogens lead to epigenetically induced evolutionary changes in embryos?.  Evol Dev. 2005;  7(4) 341-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Ho S M, Tang W Y, Belmonte de Frausto J, Prins G S. Developmental exposure to estradiol and bisphenol A increases susceptibility to prostate carcinogenesis and epigenetically regulates phosphodiesterase type 4 variant 4.  Cancer Res. 2006;  66(11) 5624-5632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Li S, Hansman R, Newbold R, Davis B, McLachlan J A, Barrett J C. Neonatal diethylstilbestrol exposure induces persistent elevation of c-fos expression and hypomethylation in its exon-4 in mouse uterus.  Mol Carcinog. 2003;  38(2) 78-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Champagne F A, Weaver I C, Diorio J, Dymov S, Szyf M, Meaney M J. Maternal care associated with methylation of the estrogen receptor-alpha1b promoter and estrogen receptor-alpha expression in the medial preoptic area of female offspring.  Endocrinology. 2006;  147(6) 2909-2915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Li S, Hursting S D, Davis B J, McLachlan J A, Barrett J C. Environmental exposure, DNA methylation, and gene regulation: lessons from diethylstilbestrol-induced cancers.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;  983 161-169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Guerrero-Bosagna C, Valladares L. Endocrine disruptors, epigenetically induced changes, and transgenerational transmission of characters and epigenetic states. In: Gore AC Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: From Basic Research to Clinical Practice. Totowa, NJ; Humana Press 2007: 175-189
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Jirtle R L, Skinner M K. Environmental epigenomics and disease susceptibility.  Nat Rev Genet. 2007;  8(4) 253-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Edwards T M, Myers J P. Environmental exposures and gene regulation in disease etiology.  Environ Health Perspect. 2007;  115(9) 1264-1270
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Wu Q, Ohsako S, Ishimura R, Suzuki J S, Tohyama C. Exposure of mouse preimplantation embryos to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) alters the methylation status of imprinted genes H19 and Igf2.  Biol Reprod. 2004;  70(6) 1790-1797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Michael K Skinner

Center for Reproductive Biology, School of Molecular Biosciences

Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4231

Email: skinner@wsu.edu

      >