Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 16;16(7):e0253453. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253453

Genotypic analysis of the female BPH/5 mouse, a model of superimposed preeclampsia

Jenny L Sones 1,*, Christina C Yarborough 2, Valerie O’Besso 3, Alexander Lemenze 4,5, Nataki C Douglas 5,6
Editor: Michael Bader7
PMCID: PMC8284809  PMID: 34270549

Abstract

Animal models that recapitulate human diseases and disorders are widely used to investigate etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of those conditions in people. Disorders during pregnancy are particularly difficult to explore as interventions in pregnant women are not easily performed. Therefore, models that allow for pre-conception investigations are advantageous for elucidating the mechanisms involved in adverse pregnancy outcomes that are responsible for both maternal and fetal morbidity, such as preeclampsia. The Blood Pressure High (BPH)/5 mouse model has been used extensively to study the pathogenesis of preeclampsia. The female BPH/5 mouse is obese with increased adiposity and borderline hypertension, both of which are exacerbated with pregnancy making it a model of superimposed preeclampsia. Thus, the BPH/5 model shares traits with a large majority of women with pre-existing conditions that predisposes them to preeclampsia. We sought to explore the genome of the BPH/5 female mouse and determine the genetic underpinnings that may contribute to preeclampsia-associated phenotypes in this model. Using a whole genome sequencing approach, we are the first to characterize the genetic mutations in BPH/5 female mice that make it unique from the closely related BPH/2 model and the normotensive background strain, C57Bl/6. We found the BPH/5 female mouse to be uniquely different from BPH/2 and C57Bl/6 mice with a genetically complex landscape. The majority of non-synonymous consequences within the coding region of BPH/5 females were missense mutations found most abundant on chromosome X when comparing BPH/5 and BPH/2, and on chromosome 8 when comparing BPH/5 to C57Bl/6. Genetic mutations in BPH/5 females largely belong to immune system-related processes, with overlap between BPH/5 and BPH/2 models. Further studies examining each gene mutation during pregnancy are warranted to determine key contributors to the BPH/5 preeclamptic-like phenotype and to identify genetic similarities to women that develop preeclampsia.

Introduction

Genetically hypertensive mice have long been utilized as translational models to investigate blood pressure regulation. The closely related strains Blood Pressure High (BPH)/2, Blood Pressure Normal (BPN)/3, and Blood Pressure Low (BPL)/1 mice, with different cardiovascular and metabolic profiles, are examples [1]. These strains were established after 23 generations of two-way selection for high and low systolic blood pressure. The base population for this selection scheme was derived from an 8-way cross between C57Bl/6 (C57), SJL, BDP, LP, RF, CBA, BALB/c, and 129 inbred mice [1] (Fig 1). Female BPH/2 mice are lean and hypertensive with systolic blood pressure and heart rates significantly higher than BPN/3 mice [2]. Female BPL/1 mice have hypotension compared to normotensive BPN/3 [3]. These strains have been used to investigate the mechanisms that lead to hypertension in humans [49]. From BPH/2, 13 sublines were created after >20 generations of brother-sister matings. One of these sublines was identified as BPH/5, which have lower blood pressures than BPH/2 mice, with female mice considered “borderline hypertensive” with mean arterial pressure ranging from 103 to 119 mmHg as measured by radiotelemetry [10,11].

Fig 1. Generation of the Blood Pressure High (BPH)/5 mouse.

Fig 1

BPH/5 mice were produced after more than twenty generations of brother-sister crosses of BPH/2 mice, which were derived alongside blood pressure normal (BPN)/3 and blood pressure low (BPL)/1 mice from an 8-way cross between C57Bl/6, Swiss Jim Lambert (SJL), BDP, LP, RF, CBA, BALB/c, and 129 inbred mice. Image made using BioRender.

More recent studies have shown that female BPH/5 mice have both metabolic and reproductive disorders [12]. By 8 weeks of age, they exhibit increased body mass with excessive subcutaneous and visceral white adipose tissue (WAT) depots [12,13], and they remain obese throughout adulthood. Further, adult female BPH/5 mice show hyperphagia and hyperleptinemia with signs of leptin resistance, suggesting metabolic syndrome and even insulin resistance. Despite being fecund, female BPH/5 mice have irregular estrous cycles, with low circulating estrogen, levels regardless of the stage of the estrous cycle, and inappropriate uterine response to sex steroid hormones [12].

In pregnancies generated from brother-sister matings, BPH/5 females spontaneously exhibit the cardinal features of preeclampsia (PE), maternal hypertension and proteinuria during the second half of gestation [10]. PE is a hypertensive disorder of human pregnancy, affecting up to 8% of women in the United States, that can cause maternal death (~76,000/year) and infant loss (~500,000/year) [14,15]. Superimposed PE occurs when pre-existing maternal hypertension is worsened with pregnancy and is accompanied by renal, liver, neurologic and/ or hematologic dysfunction after 20 weeks gestation [15]. PE can have significant fetal co-morbidities, including fetal growth restriction, which carry long-term health consequences for the offspring into adult life [16]. PE is multifactorial and thus considered a complex syndrome. Furthermore, the presentation of PE takes several forms, early (<34 weeks of gestation) and late onset (≥34 weeks of gestation). The etiology for early versus late onset is thought to involve two differing placental pathologies: shallow trophoblast invasion into maternal spiral arteries and placental villous overcrowding, respectively [1719]. More severe fetal morbidity is associated with early onset PE, consistent with current understanding that placental pathology of early onset PE develops in the 1st trimester of pregnancy. Importantly, maternal hypertension only resolves after delivery of the placenta; therefore, it is widely accepted that abnormal placentation and/or placental dysfunction plays a causal role in the pathogenesis of PE [19,20].

The BPH/5 model is a spontaneous genetic model of early onset PE that shows mild hypertension and obesity, but without signs of renal disease, prior to pregnancy. The BPH/5 female mouse is unique in that, with pregnancy, she exhibits the diagnostic features of PE without pharmacological or surgical intervention nor transgenesis or targeted mutagenesis. Thus, with BPH/5 we can examine pre-pregnancy maternal health status as well as events during, and after pregnancy that may contribute to PE in women. Importantly, obesity-induced hypertension and hyperleptinemia, which are associated with increased inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and activation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), are observed in human PE [2123] as well as in BPH/5 pregnancies [2426]. Deciphering the genetic signature of mice predisposed to PE may help in identifying women who are at a heightened risk for developing PE in pregnancy.

Herein, we use a whole genome sequencing (WGS) approach to identify genetic defects in female BPH/5 mice that may be responsible for the cardiometabolic phenotypes driving their PE-like syndrome in pregnancy. We hypothesized that female BPH/2 and BPH/5 mice would be more genetically similar to each other than C57, the control mouse used in all published BPH/5 studies. We identified chromosomal variants in BPH/5 females that may contribute to genetic mutations and alterations in the proteome. The chromosomal variants are associated with immune system processes, which is congruent with previously described pathologies in female BPH/5 mice.

Methods

All animals were maintained according to Louisiana State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approved standards. Adult female (8-12-week-old) BPH/5 mice from an in-house colony (Louisiana State University), and BPH/2 and C57Bl/6 female mice purchased from Jackson Laboratory were used. All animals were maintained according to Louisiana State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approved standards. Total Genomic DNA was isolated from tail snips of 3 mice belonging to each strain (BPH/5, BPH/2 and C57Bl/6) using DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit from Qiagen, and sequencing libraries were generated using the Nextera DNA Flex library kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA). All samples were sequenced with paired end 150bp reads on the Illumina NovaSeq (Illumina, San Diego, USA). Raw reads were mapped to the mm10 reference genome using the Illumina DRAGEN Germline Pipeline (v3.2.8). Each mouse replicate variants were merged with bcftools (v1.10) and unique/common variants were pulled for cross comparisons with vcftools (v0.1.17). Variants were annotated for putative impacts with Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor (v101.0) to the mm10 genome. Gene ontology (GO) enrichment was performed via PANTHER to identify significantly enriched biological processes (FDR p<0.05) and those ontologies present on chromosome 8 and X.

Results

BPH/5 and BPH/2 female mice share chromosomal variants, but are not genetically identical

Blood pressure in female BPH/5 mice is exacerbated by pregnancy [9]. Thus, with new onset proteinuria by mid- to late-gestation and severe hypertension, BPH/5 can be considered a model of superimposed PE [37]. The phenotypes of the non-pregnant female BPH/5 female mouse, including mild hypertension and obesity, are similar to those of women at higher risk for developing PE [10,13,27,28]. Therefore, determining the genetic underpinnings of these phenotypes can enhance our ability to identify women who are at high-risk before pregnancy. We performed WGS to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and insertion/deletion variants as compared to the reference mm10 genome in female BPH/5, BPH/2 and C57 female mice, and present these as Venn Diagrams to illustrate the cross-sample comparisons (Figs 2A, 3A and 4A). There are 53,209 common chromosomal variants between BPH/2 and C57 with 5,137,524 unique to BPH/2 and 19,061 unique to C57 (Fig 2A). We found 4,334,355 common chromosomal variants between BPH/5 and BPH/2 with 856,378 unique to BPH/2 and 1,094,415 unique to BPH/5 (Fig 3A). Comparison of BPH/5 and C57 revealed 54,920 shared chromosomal variants, 5,373,850 unique to BPH/5, and 17,350 unique to C57 (Fig 4A). Therefore, while female BPH/5 and BPH/2 are genetically more similar to each other than to female C57 mice in terms of numbers of mutations, there are also distinct mutations present unique to each strain.

Fig 2. Genetic comparison of Blood Pressure High/(BPH) 2 and C57 female mouse.

Fig 2

A) Venn diagram representing the quantified overlap of chromosomal variants between BPH/2 and C57. B) Location of variants along the chromosome between BPH/2 and C57. C) Pie chart representing the percentage of the types of putative variant consequences between BPH/2 and C57: Intron, intergenic, non-coding transcript, upstream of a gene, of a gene, nonsense mediated decay (NMD) transcript, and other (all variant types <1%). D) Pie chart representing the percentage of types of putative coding region variant consequences between BPH/2 and C57: Synonymous, missense, frameshift, and other (all variant types <1%).

Fig 3. Genetic comparison of Blood Pressure High (BPH)/5 and 2 female mouse.

Fig 3

A) Venn diagram representing the quantified overlap of chromosomal variants between BPH/5 and BPH/2. B) Location of variants along the chromosome between BPH/5 and BPH/2. C) Pie chart representing the percentage of putative variant consequences between BPH/5 and BPH/2: Intron, intergenic, non-coding transcript, upstream of a gene, downstream of a gene, nonsense mediated decay (NMD) transcript, and other (all variant types <1%). D) Pie chart representing the percentage of types of putative coding region variant consequences between BPH/5 and BPH/2: Synonymous, missense, frameshift, and other (all variant types <1%).

Fig 4. Genetic comparison of Blood Pressure High (BPH)/5 and C57 female mouse.

Fig 4

A) Venn diagram representing the quantified overlap of chromosomal variants between BPH/2 and C57. B) Location of variants along the chromosome between BPH/2 and C57. C) Pie chart representing the percentage of the types of putative variant consequences between BPH/2 and C57: Intron, intergenic, non-coding transcript, upstream of a gene, nonsense mediated decay (NMD) transcript, and other (all variant types <1%). D) Pie chart representing the percentage of types of putative coding region variant consequences between BPH/2 and C57: Synonymous, missense, frameshift, and other (all variant types <1%).

The majority of BPH/5 and BPH/2 chromosomal variants in the coding region are missense mutations

Female BPH/5 mice exhibit a number of phenotypic differences when compared to normotensive female C57 mice [12]. While studies specifically comparing female BPH/5 and BPH/2 mice have not yet been performed, we hypothesized that their genetic makeup would be similar due to their shared parentage. We determined the number of variants per chromosome. Comparison of mutations between BPH/2 and C57 females demonstrated that chromosome 8 has the largest number of unique variants (Fig 2B). The majority of these are intronic (49.3%), while 13.2% are intergenic (Fig 2C). Furthermore, of the non-synonymous consequences, 35.3% are attributed to missense mutations (Fig 2D). Fewer unique chromosomal variants were identified in the comparison of BPH/5 versus BPH/2, with the largest number located on chromosome X (Fig 3B). As in the BPH/2 versus C57 comparison, most variants are intronic (48.3%), while 15.5% are intergenic (Fig 3C) and of the non-synonymous consequences, 41.3% are missense mutations (Fig 3D). As with BPH/2 versus C57, the largest number of unique variants identified in the comparison of BPH/5 and C57 are on chromosome 8 (Fig 4B). The majority of these are intronic (49.2%), while 13.7% are intergenic (Fig 4C). Of the non-synonymous consequences, 35.9% are missense mutations (Fig 4D). Because SNPs producing missense mutations can result in amino acid substitutions, functional consequences of such variants are likely to contribute to the BPH/5 phenotypes.

Predicted altered biological processes in BPH/5 and BPH/2 are predominately immune-related

To better understand the importance of the chromosomal variation and mutational burden of the BPH/5 model as compared to C57 and to the immediate strain they were derived from, BPH/2, GO enrichment analysis was performed. The full GO list revealed differences in immune-related programs when comparing biological processes enriched in BPH/2 versus C57, BPH/5 versus BPH/2, and BPH/5 versus C57 (S1S3 Tables). The significantly enriched biological processes associated with hypertensive phenotypes observed in BPH/2 versus C57 (Fig 5A), BPH/5 versus BPH/2 (Fig 5B), and BPH/5 versus C57 (Fig 5C) female mice include those involved in adaptive and innate immunity; notably, complement activation and lymphocyte regulation. Genetic variants are present between BPH/5 and BPH/2 on chromosome X and map to 69 genes (S4 Table). Although not significant, biological processes implicated include cellular and developmental processes, and reproduction (Fig 6A). When comparing female BPH/5 to C57, 336 genetic mutations were identified on Chromosome 8 (S5 Table) and a significant number of biological processes were altered, including cellular, metabolic, developmental, and reproductive (Fig 6B). Raw sequencing data have been uploaded to the Short Reads Archive with project number PRJNA701765 Processed annotated data has been provided as S6 and S7 Tables for BPH/5 versus BPH/2 (S6 Table) and BPH/5 versus C57 (S7 Table; accessible online: 10.6084/m9.figshare.14888202).

Fig 5. Gene ontology of relevant biological processes perturbed in hypertensive mouse strains, Blood Pressure High (BPH)/5 and 2 female mouse.

Fig 5

A) Top gene ontology (GO) terms of biological processes altered in BPH/2 versus C57 ranked by significance B) Top GO terms of biological processes altered in BPH/5 versus BPH/2 ranked by significance C) Top GO terms of biological processes altered in BPH/5 versus C57 ranked by significance.

Fig 6. Gene ontology of relevant biological processes perturbed in the Blood Pressure High (BPH)/5 female mouse.

Fig 6

A) Top gene ontology (GO) terms of biological processes altered in BPH/5 versus BPH/2 on Chromosome X and B) Top GO terms of biological processes altered BPH/5 versus C57 in ranked by significance.

Discussion

PE is diagnosed in the latter half of pregnancy; however, the origins of early onset PE are thought to begin early in pregnancy at the time of placentation, or even before conception. Therefore, identifying high-risk women would allow for earlier detection, increased prenatal medical management, and potentially improved maternal and fetal outcomes. The mouse model of superimposed PE, BPH/5, has been utilized to study the pathogenesis of PE for several decades. While the maternal and fetal PE phenotypes in BPH/5 are well described, their genotypic determinants are unknown. We utilized Illumina short-read sequencing technology to perform WGS to identify genetic differences (chromosomal variation and mutational burden) followed by gene ontology to predict perturbed programs in female BPH/5 versus female BPH/2 and C57, which has been the control strain for all BPH/5 published studies [10]. We found that female BPH/5 are similar to female BPH/2 mice, while also presenting unique gene variants not observed in BPH/2. Furthermore, the differences between female BPH/5 and normotensive C57 mice are due primarily to missense mutations within genes involved in immune-related processes.

There are few reports on the BP mice, and even fewer in which the strains are compared to one another. Our findings suggest sex specific differences in the cardiometabolic profiles of the closely related BP strains, highlighting the importance of acknowledging sex as a biological variable in genetic models of disease. Although the metabolic profile of adult female BPH/2 mice has not been fully elucidated, BPH/2 females demonstrate increased blood pressure and heart rates as well as endothelial dysfunction and decreased body weight compared to BPN/3 females [3,7]. The maternal and fetal characteristics of BPH/2 pregnancies have not yet been reported. Thus, it is unknown whether female BPH/2 mice could be a mouse model of superimposed PE, similar to BPH/5. Male BPH/2 mice have been utilized to investigate basic cardiometabolic physiology. In adulthood, they are hypertensive with a greater metabolic rate and decreased body weight compared to normotensive BPN/3 males [2], which is similar to what is observed in comparison of BPH/2 and BPN/3 females. Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) of male BPH/2 mice has been undertaken to elucidate the genetic defects associated with hypertension in this strain [4], but no such studies have been performed on BPH/5 male or female mice.

BPH/5 females have pre-existing cardiometabolic risk, including hyperphagia, obesity and leptin resistance, and hypoestrogenemia [12], before pregnancy and their phenotype is unique from BPH/5 males. Interestingly, BPH/5 males are not obese, nor do they share all the cardiometabolic phenotypes observed in their female littermates [29]. Female offspring inherit two X chromosomes and inactivation of one is necessary to prevent overdose of X-linked genes. Several cardiometabolic diseases have been associated with X overdose and sex-biased gene expression [3035]. This phenomenon may exist in the BPH/5 model and further investigation is needed. For example, mutations in the Fanconi anemia group B (FANCB) gene are present in men with X-linked Fanconi anemia and are associated with infertility in male mice [36,37]. BPH/5 female mice have genetic mutations in Fancb, which may undergo X-inactivation as they are not anemic nor infertile (unpublished data).

Comparison of normotensive C57 females to hypertensive BPH/2 and to borderline hypertensive BPH/5 females, showed that the largest number of unique chromosomal variants are on chromosome 8 for both BPH/2 versus C57 and BPH/5 versus C57. In a hypertensive rat model, a quantitative trait locus for elevated heart rates was found on chromosome 8 [38]. RAS genes were considered as they are important for cardiovascular adaptations in mammals, including blood pressure regulation, and may contribute to female BPH/5 borderline hypertension before pregnancy. We hypothesized that BPH/5 and BPH/2 mice would possess similar mutations in RAS genes, specifically angiotensinogen (Agt) and kallikrein, as previously described in BPH/2 [2]. BPH/5 female mice have non-synonymous mutations in Agt, but not in angiotensinogen converting enzyme (Ace) and Agt receptor (Agtr) 1a. Importantly, Agt is located on Chromosome 8 in the mouse and is critically important for downstream RAS function; therefore, the Agt mutation in BPH/5 may be enough to promote the cardiovascular defects (tachycardia and mild hypertension) that are exacerbated by pregnancy in this model. Interestingly, kallikrein gene mutations are not observed in BPH/5 female mice, which supports our findings here that BPH/5 are similar to BPH/2 but uniquely different. Research is ongoing in our laboratory to fully describe all RAS genes in the BPH/5 genome. Several PE studies implicate RAS polymorphisms in the maternal genome, such as ACE and aldosterone synthase, as associated with adverse outcomes [3941]. However, there is significant variation when looking at women from different geographic backgrounds [39,42]. Thus, a large consortium of data is needed from women of diverse ethnic backgrounds to adequately assess the polymorphic contributors of PE-related traits and the impact of maternal genetics on PE [43].

Mutations on chromosome X account for the majority of variants present between female BPH/5 and BPH/2 female mice. Although GO analysis did not identify significantly different biological processes between the two strains, mutations were present in genes involved in immune system function, including growth factor receptor bound protein 2-associated protein 3 (Gab3) in BPH/5 strain. Proteins in the Gab family are intracellular scaffolding and docking molecules sensitive to growth factors, cytokines, and antigen receptors. They are important for immune cell function, including interleukin (IL) 15 induced natural killer (NK) cell expansion [44] and macrophage differentiation [45]. While non-pregnant Gab3 deficient mice do not show defects in development, hematopoiesis, and immune cell function, they have significant abnormalities of pregnancy which are shared by pregnant BPH/5 mice and preeclamptic women [46]. Gab3 deficient mice have abnormal placentation due to impaired uterine NK cell priming and expansion by IL-2 and IL-15 resulting in maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality [44]. BPH/5 female mice spontaneously develop a PE-like phenotype in pregnancy, which include abnormalities in placental development such as shallow trophoblast invasion and inadequate spiral artery remodeling [24]. This is thought to contribute to hypoxia and inflammation at the maternal-fetal interface, which have been shown to be causally related to maternal hypertension and fetal growth restriction in this model [47,48]. BPH/5 females also have fewer uterine NK cells compared to C57 in pregnancy and restoration of uterine NK cells was associated with improved pregnancy outcomes [48]. Further investigations are warranted to better understand the role that Gab3 mutations might play in BPH/5 pregnancy outcomes.

In addition to uterine NK cell defects, BPH/5 female mice also have inflammatory immune cell activation at the maternal-fetal interface, early in pregnancy [49]. Immunotolerance at the maternal-fetal interface is key for embryo survival and pregnancy success [50]. An aberrant maternal immune response and subsequent lack of immunotolerance to the early embryo has been proposed as a central mechanism in the pathogenesis of PE [51]. In the post-implantation, pre-placentation decidua, BPH/5 have decreased macrophage, but increased T lymphocyte populations (CD3+, CD69+, CD4+, CD8+) along with decreased anti-inflammatory IL-10 [49]. Data from Gab3 deficient mice suggest that pre-conception dysregulation of immune cells may not be apparent until challenged with pregnancy. This supports the hypothesis that genetic mutations prior to pregnancy may be useful biomarkers for development of PE in high-risk women.

In line with our pregnancy studies in BPH/5, GO enrichment analyses showed that immune system processes account for some of the genetic differences between BPH/5 and C57 female mice. Broadly, innate and adaptive immune responses are perturbed in BPH/5, including complement activation and T cell function [49,52,53]. Aberrations in T and B lymphocyte function as well as the complement system are considered pro-hypertensive [54]. BPH/5 have increased complement factor 3 (C3) in adipose tissue before and during pregnancy as well as at the maternal-fetal interface that is attenuated by caloric restriction via pair-feeding beginning at conception [55,56]. Thus, genetic defects in immune system processes may contribute to the abnormal cardiometabolic profile, including hypertension and obesity, observed in BPH/5 females. Taken together, this suggests that dietary intervention and reversal of obesity could influence the genetic propensity for immune cell dysregulation in BPH/5 female mice.

Female BPH/5 mice have tachycardia and increased blood pressure along with obesity and dyslipidemia prior to pregnancy [12]. Women with pre-existing hypertension have a 25% increased risk for developing PE during pregnancy [57]. When this occurs, it is diagnosed as superimposed PE in contrast to new onset PE. Other pre-conception maternal risk factors include being overweight or obese with a body mass index (BMI) between 25–30 kg/m2 and greater than 30 kg/m2, respectively [58]. There is a strong correlation between BMI and adverse pregnancy outcomes with obese women have a 3-times increased risk for developing PE compared to lean counterparts [58]. This is further supported by data showing weight loss before pregnancy via bariatric surgery decreased PE risk in obese pregnant women [59,60]. Interestingly, while pre-existing obesity and excessive gestational weight gain is associated with increased PE risk, only 10% of obese women develop PE [28,61]. This may be due to differences in circulating lipids with a strong correlation of PE and increased triglycerides and free fatty acids [28]. Understanding the differences between obese females, that go on to have PE versus the ones that do not, is important. The BPH/5 model affords the opportunity to investigate cardiometabolic risk before pregnancy and how it contributes to development of a PE-like phenotype. Several hypotheses exist to explain the association between obesity and PE. For example, reduced nitric oxide availability secondary to increased asymmetrical dimethyl arginine (ADMA) and oxidative stress, increased sympathetic tone, and increased expression of angiotensinogen from adipose tissue have been proposed. Simply, increased systemic inflammation as a result of circulating adipokines, such as leptin, have been implicated in the onset of PE. Mechanistic studies are necessary to understand the role of adipose tissue, ADMA, and inflammation as well as oxidative stress in PE.

Given what is known regarding obesity and its implications on the cardiovascular system, it is not surprising that BPH/5 female exhibit mild hypertension even before pregnancy. Recent research suggests that the relationship between maternal obesity and exacerbation of cardiovascular disease in pregnancy is modulated by the maternal microbiome [62]. In humans, obese mothers have a dysbiotic gut microbiome characterized by a high firmicutes-to-bacteroidetes ratio [8]. This increased ratio has been linked to hypertension in humans and in animal models. In the context of PE, maternal gut dysbiosis may lead to an increased inflammatory response which could contribute to the development of PE. Chen et al characterized an increase of Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Enterobacteriaceae in women that developed PE [63]. It has also been proposed that bacterial translocation to the placenta may occur in pregnancy provoking an inflammatory response promoting abnormal placentation, and predisposing offspring to gut microbial dysbiosis as well [9]. Although this idea is controversial, microbial populations may be involved in the aberrant immune system activation and inflammation seen in PE. The BPH/5 female microbiome is currently being characterized using metagenomic approaches.

BPH/5 are an inbred genetic model of superimposed PE that spontaneously develops maternal and fetal features of PE by late gestation. Although this model has been utilized to investigate events before and during pregnancy that may contribute to PE in women, the genetic origins of PE in BPH/5 were previously unexplored. Herein, we characterize the genetic underpinnings of the PE phenotype in BPH/5 female mice. We found not one, but many distinctive genetic variations in BPH/5 female mice, even when compared to the closely related BPH/2 strain. Largescale genomic studies are necessary to further explore the genetics of different rodent strains utilized to study PE. These findings may provide new avenues of PE research, including identification of genetic biomarkers of PE in women. If genetic determinants of the BPH/5 phenotype are implicated in human PE, these mice will be particularly useful for in vivo pregnancy studies to explore prevention, treatment, and long-term prognosis of women and offspring affected by PE.

Supporting information

S1 Table

(XLS)

S2 Table

(XLS)

S3 Table

(XLS)

S4 Table

(XLSX)

S5 Table

(XLSX)

S6 Table

(ZIP)

S7 Table

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

Dr. Robin Davisson for the generous gift of the BPH/5 mice. Drs. Carrie J. Shawber, Andrea Johnston, and Anik Boudreau, Chris Morrison for manuscript review.

Data Availability

All raw files are available from the short reads archives (PRJNA701765).

Funding Statement

SOURCES OF FUNDING NIH COBRE P20 GM135002 (JLS); NIH R01 HL127013 (NCD).

References

  • 1.Schlager G, Sides J. Characterization of hypertensive and hypotensive inbred strains of mice. Lab Anim Sci. 1997;47(3):288–292. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jackson KL, Head GA, Gueguen C, Stevenson ER, Lim K, Marques FZ. Mechanisms responsible for genetic hypertension in schlager BPH/2 mice. Front Physiol. 2019;10:1311. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bachmanov AA, Schlager G, Tordoff MG, Beauchamp GK. Consumption of electrolytes and quinine by mouse strains with different blood pressures. Physiol Behav. 1998;64(3):323–330. doi: 10.1016/s0031-9384(98)00069-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wright FA, O’Connor DT, Roberts E, et al. Genome scan for blood pressure loci in mice. Hypertension. 1999;34(4 Pt 1):625–630. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.34.4.625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wong C, Mahapatra NR, Chitbangonsyn S, et al. The angiotensin II receptor (Agtr1a): Functional regulatory polymorphisms in a locus genetically linked to blood pressure variation in the mouse. Physiol Genomics. 2003;14(1):83–93. doi: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00162.2002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Merrill DC, Thompson MW, Carney CL, et al. Chronic hypertension and altered baroreflex responses in transgenic mice containing the human renin and human angiotensinogen genes. J Clin Invest. 1996;97(4):1047–1055. doi: 10.1172/JCI118497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.McGuire JJ, Van Vliet BN, Giménez J, King JC, Halfyard SJ. Persistence of PAR-2 vasodilation despite endothelial dysfunction in BPH/2 hypertensive mice. Pflugers Arch. 2007;454(4):535–543. doi: 10.1007/s00424-007-0226-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gueguen C, Jackson KL, Marques FZ, et al. Renal nerves contribute to hypertension in schlager BPH/2J mice. Hypertens Res. 2019;42(3):306–318. doi: 10.1038/s41440-018-0147-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fries RS, Mahboubi P, Mahapatra NR, et al. Neuroendocrine transcriptome in genetic hypertension: Multiple changes in diverse adrenal physiological systems. Hypertension. 2004;43(6):1301–1311. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000127708.96195.E6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Davisson RL, Hoffmann DS, Butz GM, et al. Discovery of a spontaneous genetic mouse model of preeclampsia. Hypertension. 2002;39(2 Pt 2):337–342. doi: 10.1161/hy02t2.102904 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sones JL, Cha J, Woods AK, et al. Decidual Cox2 inhibition improves fetal and maternal outcomes in a preeclampsia-like mouse model. Journal of Clinical Investigation Insight. 2016;1(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sutton EF, Lob HE, Song J, et al. Adverse metabolic phenotype of female offspring exposed to preeclampsia in utero: A characterization of the BPH/5 mouse in postnatal life. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2017;312(4):R485–R491. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00512.2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Reijnders D, Olson KN, Liu CC, et al. Dyslipidemia and the role of adipose tissue in early pregnancy in the BPH/5 mouse model for preeclampsia. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2019;317(1):R49–R58. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00334.2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Backes CH, Markham K, Moorehead P, Cordero L, Nankervis CA, Giannone PJ. Maternal preeclampsia and neonatal outcomes. J Pregnancy. 2011;2011:214365. doi: 10.1155/2011/214365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sutton ALM, Harper LM, Tita ATN. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2018;45(2):333–347. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2018.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Spradley FT, Palei AC, Granger JP. Increased risk for the development of preeclampsia in obese pregnancies: Weighing in on the mechanisms. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2015;309(11):R1326–43. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00178.2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wilkerson RG, Ogunbodede AC. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2019;37(2):301–316. doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2019.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Conrad KP. Evidence for corpus luteal and endometrial origins of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women conceiving with or without assisted reproduction. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2020;47(1):163–181. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2019.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Staff AC. The two-stage placental model of preeclampsia: An update. J Reprod Immunol. 2019;134–135:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jri.2019.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cross JC. The genetics of pre-eclampsia: A feto-placental or maternal problem? Clin Genet. 2003;64(2):96–103. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2003.00127.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Redman CW, Sargent IL. Placental stress and pre-eclampsia: A revised view. Placenta. 2009;30 Suppl A:S38–42. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2008.11.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Roberts JM, Gammill HS. Preeclampsia: Recent insights. Hypertension. 2005;46(6):1243–1249. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000188408.49896.c5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Uzan J, Carbonnel M, Piconne O, Asmar R, Ayoubi JM. Pre-eclampsia: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2011;7:467–474. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S20181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Davisson RL, Hoffmann DS, Butz GM, et al. Discovery of a spontaneous genetic mouse model of preeclampsia. Hypertension. 2002;39(2 Pt 2):337–342. doi: 10.1161/hy02t2.102904 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dokras A, Hoffmann DS, Eastvold JS, et al. Severe feto-placental abnormalities precede the onset of hypertension and proteinuria in a mouse model of preeclampsia. Biol Reprod. 2006;75(6):899–907. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.106.053603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Woods AK, Hoffmann DS, Weydert CJ, et al. Adenoviral delivery of VEGF121 early in pregnancy prevents spontaneous development of preeclampsia in BPH/5 mice. Hypertension. 2011;57(1):94–102. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.160242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sutton EF, Lob HE, Song J, et al. Adverse metabolic phenotype of female offspring exposed to preeclampsia in utero: A characterization of the BPH/5 mouse in postnatal life. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2017;312(4):R485–R491. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00512.2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lopez-Jaramillo P, Barajas J, Rueda-Quijano SM, Lopez-Lopez C, Felix C. Obesity and preeclampsia: Common pathophysiological mechanisms. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1838. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Beckers KF, Gomes V, Reijnders D, Robillard K, Liu CC, Sones J.L. Phenotypic differences exist between BPH/5 offspring in a sex-dependent manner after maternal calorie restriction. FASEB journal: official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 2020;34(S1). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Arnold AP, Cassis LA, Eghbali M, Reue K, Sandberg K. Sex hormones and sex chromosomes cause sex differences in the development of cardiovascular diseases. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2017;37(5):746–756. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.116.307301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Reue K. Sex differences in obesity: X chromosome dosage as a risk factor for increased food intake, adiposity and co-morbidities. Physiol Behav. 2017;176:174–182. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.02.040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Carrel L, Willard HF. X-inactivation profile reveals extensive variability in X-linked gene expression in females. Nature. 2005;434(7031):400–404. doi: 10.1038/nature03479 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dhasarathy A, Roemmich JN, Claycombe KJ. Influence of maternal obesity, diet and exercise on epigenetic regulation of adipocytes. Mol Aspects Med. 2017;54:37–49. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2016.10.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Duncan CG, Grimm SA, Morgan DL, et al. Dosage compensation and DNA methylation landscape of the X chromosome in mouse liver. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):10138-018–28356-3. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-28356-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Golden LC, Itoh Y, Itoh N, et al. Parent-of-origin differences in DNA methylation of X chromosome genes in T lymphocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(52):26779–26787. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1910072116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gunes S, Al-Sadaan M, Agarwal A. Spermatogenesis, DNA damage and DNA repair mechanisms in male infertility. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31(3):309–319. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kato Y, Alavattam KG, Sin HS, et al. FANCB is essential in the male germline and regulates H3K9 methylation on the sex chromosomes during meiosis. Hum Mol Genet. 2015;24(18):5234–5249. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddv244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Silva GJ, Pereira AC, Krieger EM, Krieger JE. Genetic mapping of a new heart rate QTL on chromosome 8 of spontaneously hypertensive rats. BMC Med Genet. 2007;8:17-2350–8-17. doi: 10.1186/1471-2350-8-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Aung M, Konoshita T, Moodley J, Gathiram P. Association of gene polymorphisms of aldosterone synthase and angiotensin converting enzyme in pre-eclamptic south african black women. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018;11:38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.preghy.2017.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bereketoğlu C, Kasap M, Pazarbaşı A. Studies on angiotensin-converting enzyme insertion/deletion polymorphism and genotype distributions in turkish preeclampsia patients. J Pregnancy. 2012;2012:108206. doi: 10.1155/2012/108206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Medica I, Kastrin A, Peterlin B. Genetic polymorphisms in vasoactive genes and preeclampsia: A meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;131(2):115–126. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Henderson SO, Haiman CA, Mack W. Multiple polymorphisms in the renin- angiotensin-aldosterone system (ACE, CYP11B2, AGTR1) and their contribution to hypertension in african americans and latinos in the multiethnic cohort. Am J Med Sci. 2004;328(5):266–273. doi: 10.1097/00000441-200411000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Serrano NC, Díaz LA, Páez MC, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme I/D polymorphism and preeclampsia risk: Evidence of small-study bias. PLoS Med. 2006;3(12):e520. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Sliz A, Locker KCS, Lampe K, et al. Gab3 is required for IL-2- and IL-15-induced NK cell expansion and limits trophoblast invasion during pregnancy. Sci Immunol. 2019;4(38):eaav3866. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aav3866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Seiffert M, Custodio JM, Wolf I, et al. Gab3-deficient mice exhibit normal development and hematopoiesis and are immunocompetent. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(7):2415–2424. doi: 10.1128/MCB.23.7.2415-2424.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Sones JL, Davisson RL. Preeclampsia, of mice and women. Physiol Genomics. 2016;48(8):565–572. doi: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00125.2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Reijnders D, Liu CC, Xu X, et al. Celecoxib restores angiogenic factor expression at the maternal-fetal interface in the BPH/5 mouse model of preeclampsia. Physiol Genomics. 2018;50(5):385–392. doi: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00115.2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sones JL, Cha J, Woods AK, et al. Decidual Cox2 inhibition improves fetal and maternal outcomes in a preeclampsia-like mouse model. JCI Insight. 2016;1(3):e75351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Heyward CY, Sones JL, Lob HE, et al. The decidua of preeclamptic-like BPH/5 mice exhibits an exaggerated inflammatory response during early pregnancy. J Reprod Immunol. 2017;120:27–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jri.2017.04.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Moffett A, Loke C. Immunology of placentation in eutherian mammals. Nat Rev Immunol. 2006;6(8):584–594. doi: 10.1038/nri1897 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Moffett A, Colucci F. Uterine NK cells: Active regulators at the maternal-fetal interface. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(5):1872–1879. doi: 10.1172/JCI68107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gelber SE, Brent E, Redecha P, et al. Prevention of defective placentation and pregnancy loss by blocking innate immune pathways in a syngeneic model of placental insufficiency. J Immunol. 2015;195(3):1129–1138. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1402220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sones JL, Merriam AA, Seffens A, et al. Angiogenic factor imbalance precedes complement deposition in placentae of the BPH/5 model of preeclampsia. FASEB J. 2018;32(5):2574–2586. doi: 10.1096/fj.201701008R [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wenzel UO, Ehmke H, Bode M. Immune mechanisms in arterial hypertension. recent advances. Cell Tissue Res. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s00441-020-03409-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Olson KN, Reijnders D, Gomes VCL, et al. Complement in reproductive white adipose tissue characterizes the obese preeclamptic-like BPH/5 mouse prior to and during pregnancy. Biology (Basel). 2020;9(9):304. doi: 10.3390/biology9090304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Sones JL, Merriam AA, Seffens A, et al. Angiogenic factor imbalance precedes complement deposition in placentae of the BPH/5 model of preeclampsia. FASEB J. 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Bramham K, Seed PT, Lightstone L, et al. Diagnostic and predictive biomarkers for pre-eclampsia in patients with established hypertension and chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2016;89(4):874–885. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2015.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Wolf M, Kettyle E, Sandler L, Ecker JL, Roberts J, Thadhani R. Obesity and preeclampsia: The potential role of inflammation. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(5 Pt 1):757–762. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01551-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kwong W, Tomlinson G, Feig DS. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after bariatric surgery; a systematic review and meta-analysis: Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(6):573–580. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Galazis N, Docheva N, Simillis C, Nicolaides KH. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in women undergoing bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;181:45–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.07.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Fortner RT, Pekow P, Solomon CG, Markenson G, Chasan-Taber L. Prepregnancy body mass index, gestational weight gain, and risk of hypertensive pregnancy among latina women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(2):167.e1–167.e7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Beckers KF, Sones JL. Maternal microbiome and the hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, preeclampsia. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2019. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00469.2019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Chen X, Li P, Liu M, et al. Gut dysbiosis induces the development of pre-eclampsia through bacterial translocation. Gut. 2020;69(3):513–522. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michael Bader

21 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-04771

Genotypic analysis of the female BPH/5 mouse, a model of superimposed preeclampsia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sones,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael Bader

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. As part of your revisions, please indicate if you used anesthesia for the tail snip procedure and if so, please specify. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I believe these findings are very important to publish and also make the dataset available to other researchers. To be able to identify gene mutations that may predispose these mice to spontaneous preeclampsia and correlate with mutations found in human preeclamptic patients would be a very useful research tool.

I have a few relatively minor questions/comments.

I assume the BPH/2 strain is included as a genetically related but non-preeclamptic hypertensive strain, is that correct? Is there evidence from yourself or from other publications that the BPH/2J mice are not also preeclamptic? If it is unknown whether the BPH/2 are preeclamptic, then how do you know which gene mutations are associated with preeclampsia as opposed to hypertension alone. Differences may also be associated with being lean (BPH/2) versus obese (BPH/5). Can you elaborate more in the discussion?

Is 3 animals per strain an adequate sample size for whole genome sequence analysis?

Can you please expand on how the BPH/5 diverged from the BPH/2 mice strain in the original breeding protocol? Were they crossed with a strain other than the BPH/2?

The writing on the figures 2-4 is mostly too small to read.

In Supp table 4 and 5 there is no header for the columns? Are these just mutations in protein coding regions? A descriptive title would be useful so the reader doesn’t have to go back to the text to figure out what strains are being compared and column heading please. I think the value of this study lies in the ability of other researchers to probe this dataset to look for genes of interest both now and as new findings become available. This will be a really useful tool for other researchers for years to come. Are the BPH/5 mice available to other researchers to study, either from yourself or from somewhere like Jackson laboratories? Is it possible or feasible for the author to detail mutations in non-protein coding regions similar to Supp table 4 and 5, but those that may occur in known regulatory regions such as promotor or enhancer regions for a gene?

Reviewer #2: In this study, Sones et al use a whole genome approach to identify genetic defects in the BPH/5 mouse model of preeclampsia, that may explain the predisposition to risk of PE in women. I have some comments/suggestions below:

-The abstract would be strengthened by mentioning some of the other differences, and being more specific.

-The relevance of the BPH/2 mouse is not clear. Although this is explained within the paper, I would suggest explaining the relationship/phenotype of the BPH/2.

-Can any further information be derived regarding changes in specific genes related to the immune responses altered? --Can any specific genes of interest be identified?

-The susceptibility to PE in obese women is discussed in the introduction. The authors suggest that the findings from this study may be useful in understanding the relationship between obesity and PE, but it is not addressed in the discussion. Even if nothing specific was identified, this could be tied into immune response?

-Generally speaking, the discussion needs to be better linked to the hypothesis stated in the introduction.

Many of the figures were not large enough for me to read

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 16;16(7):e0253453. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253453.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Jun 2021

Reviewer #1: I believe these findings are very important to publish and also make the dataset available to other researchers. To be able to identify gene mutations that may predispose these mice to spontaneous preeclampsia and correlate with mutations found in human preeclamptic patients would be a very useful research tool.

I have a few relatively minor questions/comments.

I assume the BPH/2 strain is included as a genetically related but non-preeclamptic hypertensive strain, is that correct? Is there evidence from yourself or from other publications that the BPH/2J mice are not also preeclamptic? If it is unknown whether the BPH/2 are preeclamptic, then how do you know which gene mutations are associated with preeclampsia as opposed to hypertension alone. Differences may also be associated with being lean (BPH/2) versus obese (BPH/5).

The authors appreciate you highlighting this important point. To date, we cannot find a publication supporting BPH/2 females developing a preeclamptic phenotype. Therefore, the genetic differences between the 2 strains may only contribute to the BPH/5 obesity phenotype with BPH/2 females being lean compared to BPN/3 and BPH/5. However, in support of BPH/5 as a model of PE, BPH/5 females have new onset endothelial dysfunction with pregnancy while BPH/2 females have preexisting endothelial dysfunction. Thus, further investigations beyond the scope of this paper are needed in BPH/2 females to ascertain if they develop a PE-like phenotype as well.. These points have been added to the Introduction and Discussion.

Is 3 animals per strain an adequate sample size for whole genome sequence analysis?

Yes, we were able to detect significant differences between strains with n=3.

Can you please expand on how the BPH/5 diverged from the BPH/2 mice strain in the original breeding protocol? Were they crossed with a strain other than the BPH/2?

To our knowledge, only BPH/2 brothers and sisters were used to generate the BPH/5 subline as described by Schlager and is referenced in the Introduction and illustrated in Figure 1.

The writing on the figures 2-4 is mostly too small to read.

Thank you for pointing that out. We have enlarged the figures and the text within including color legends.

In Supp table 4 and 5 there is no header for the columns? Are these just mutations in protein coding regions?

Headings have been added.

I think the value of this study lies in the ability of other researchers to probe this dataset to look for genes of interest both now and as new findings become available. This will be a really useful tool for other researchers for years to come. Are the BPH/5 mice available to other researchers to study, either from yourself or from somewhere like Jackson laboratories?

Once the genetics of this model have been described and published, we plan to share the model broadly with the caveat that, as seen with this study, the genetic mutations leading to this phenotype are complex.

Is it possible or feasible for the author to detail mutations in non-protein coding regions similar to Supp table 4 and 5, but those that may occur in known regulatory regions such as promotor or enhancer regions for a gene?

Full listing of mutations between BPH/5 v BPH/2 an BPH/5 v C57 have been included now as Supplemental table 6 and 7 respectively.

Reviewer #2: In this study, Sones et al use a whole genome approach to identify genetic defects in the BPH/5 mouse model of preeclampsia, that may explain the predisposition to risk of PE in women. I have some comments/suggestions below:

-The abstract would be strengthened by mentioning some of the other differences, and being more specific.

Thank you. The abstract now includes specific examples of the type of genetic differences we unearthed between BPH/5, C57Bl/6 and BPH/2.

-The relevance of the BPH/2 mouse is not clear. Although this is explained within the paper, I would suggest explaining the relationship/phenotype of the BPH/2.

The authors thank you for highlighting this deficiency. Because the closest genetic relative of BPH/5 is BPH/2, this comparison was included to determine how far the strains diverged genetically in light of their differing phenotypes. This has been elaborated in the Discussion to clarify for both Reviewer 1 and 2.

-Can any further information be derived regarding changes in specific genes related to the immune responses altered? --Can any specific genes of interest be identified?

Thank you for your comment. Full listing of mutations between BPH/5 v BPH/2 an BPH/5 v C57 have been included now as Supplemental table 6 and 7 respectively. The authors agree it will be important to follow up this descriptive study by validating genetic mutations on the mRNA as well as protein level using functional validation studies. This is ongoing in the laboratory and the focus of the follow up manuscript in preparation.

-The susceptibility to PE in obese women is discussed in the introduction. The authors suggest that the findings from this study may be useful in understanding the relationship between obesity and PE, but it is not addressed in the discussion. Even if nothing specific was identified, this could be tied into immune response? -Generally speaking, the discussion needs to be better linked to the hypothesis stated in the introduction.

The Discussion has been revamped to include a better explanation of BP lines, male and female, as well as the relevance of BPH/5 to obesity in women tying in with the immune system relevance.

Many of the figures were not large enough for me to read

Thank you for pointing that out. We have enlarged the figures and the text within including color legends. ________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers Comments Sones et al. 2021 PLoS One5-29-2021.docx

Decision Letter 1

Michael Bader

7 Jun 2021

Genotypic analysis of the female BPH/5 mouse, a model of superimposed preeclampsia

PONE-D-21-04771R1

Dear Dr. Sones,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michael Bader

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Michael Bader

2 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-04771R1

Genotypic analysis of the female BPH/5 mouse, a model of superimposed preeclampsia

Dear Dr. Sones:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Michael Bader

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table

    (XLS)

    S2 Table

    (XLS)

    S3 Table

    (XLS)

    S4 Table

    (XLSX)

    S5 Table

    (XLSX)

    S6 Table

    (ZIP)

    S7 Table

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers Comments Sones et al. 2021 PLoS One5-29-2021.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw files are available from the short reads archives (PRJNA701765).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES