Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Sep 2;17(9):e0274214. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274214

Cardiovascular consequences of maternal obesity throughout the lifespan in first generation sheep

Christopher L Pankey 1,*, Qiurong Wang 2, Jessica King 1, Stephen P Ford 2
Editor: Christopher Torrens3
PMCID: PMC9439230  PMID: 36054207

Abstract

Obesity continues to be a significant global health issue and contributes to a variety of comorbidities and disease states. Importantly, obesity contributes to adverse cardiovascular health outcomes, which is the leading cause of death worldwide. Further, maternal obesity during gestation has been shown to predispose offspring to adverse phenotypic outcomes, specifically cardiovascular outcomes. Therefore, we hypothesized that diet-induced obesity during gestation would result in adverse cardiovascular phenotypes in first-generation offspring that would have functional consequences in juvenile and advanced ages. Multiparous Rambouillet/Columbia cross ewes (F0) were fed a highly palatable, pelleted diet at either 100% (CON), or 150% (OB) of National Research Council recommendations from 60 days prior to conception, until necropsy at d 135 (90%) of gestation (CON: n = 5, OB: n = 6), or through term for lambs (F1: 2.5 mo. old; CON: n = 9, OB: n = 6) and ewes (F1:9 years old; CON: n = 5, OB: n = 8). Paraffin-embedded fetal aorta section staining revealed increased collagen:elastin ratio and greater aortic wall thickness in OBF1 fetuses. Invasive auricular blood pressure recordings revealed elevated systolic blood pressure in OBF1 lambs, but no differences in diastolic pressure. In aged F1 ewes, systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced in OBF1 relative to CONF1. Echocardiography revealed no treatment differences in F1 lambs, but F1 ewes show tendencies for increased end systolic volume and decreased stroke volume, and markedly reduced ejection fraction. Therefore, we conclude that maternal obesity programs altered cardiovascular development that results in a hypertensive state in OBF1 lambs. Increased cardiac workload resulting from early life hypertension precedes the failure of the heart to maintain function later in life.

Introduction

The obesity epidemic has tripled worldwide since 1975 [1]. Increased adiposity puts individuals at risk for comorbid, chronic conditions such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, stroke and coronary artery disease [2]. The Framingham Heart Study demonstrated that individual obesity is associated with an increased risk of heart failure and not just in cases of severe obesity [3]. Proposed mechanisms behind heart failure secondary to obesity include multifactorial processes, as increased cardiac output and blood pressure have been noted in obese patients [4].

Obesity also has significant implications in reproductive settings. In 2015, the CDC reported 48% of women gained more than the recommended amount of weight during their pregnancies [5]. In 2020, an estimated 31% of women of reproductive age were obese in the United States [6]. In addition to the maternal implications, maternal obesity also impacts the fetus throughout gestational development. The developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) hypothesis proposes that altered developmental environments, including those associated with maternal obesity, drive adaptive developmental responses in the fetus which can be detrimental [7]. Specifically, maternal obesity during pregnancy is associated with the abnormal development of cardiometabolic organs including the heart, liver, pancreas, and others, resulting in adverse metabolic phenotypes in offspring [8, 9].

When examining the effects of maternal obesity on cardiac development of the fetus, prior studies have reported that there is an increased likelihood of early death secondary to cardiovascular complications for offspring born to mothers with an elevated BMI [10]. In rodent models, maternal obesity has been shown to have an increased risk of ventricular hypertrophy [11]. Rat models also demonstrated elevated systolic blood pressure in adult offspring of dams fed a high fat diet during gestation [12]. Additional mouse studies have suggested that offspring of obese mice have both systolic and diastolic dysfunction that eventually leads to heart failure, as the observed ventricular hypertrophy in these models is not sustainable as a long-term compensatory mechanism [13].

We have developed an ovine model of diet-induced maternal obesity in an attempt to investigate the cardiovascular consequences of maternal obesity. We propose this as a strong model for investigating our research questions given the parallels observed between sheep and humans. Specifically, ovine models have a similar temporal development, typically have single or twin pregnancies, and share similar maternal:fetal body mass ratios as humans. The model in this study has been used extensively to examine maternal obesity during gestation [14], as it produces obese ewes [15], but F1 offspring that exhibit similar weight, stature, and metabolic phenotypes until they are exposed to a metabolic stressor [16].

Prior studies from our group demonstrated that fetal ovine ventricular tissue has increased inflammatory cytokine profiles resulting from maternal overnutrition in offspring from obese ewes (OBF1) [17]. We have also reported that OBF1 ewes have myocardial inflammation and fibrosis in adulthood, which was attributed to increased glucocorticoid signaling [18]. Consequently, OBF1 lambs are predisposed to cardiovascular disease and impaired cardiac function as demonstrated by decreased contractility [19]. When exposed to high workload stress, OBF1 ewes demonstrated an increase left ventricular pressure. These OBF1 ewes were reported to have reduced activity of the AMP kinase which can potentially account for the impaired cardiac function during high workload [20].

Our model has also demonstrated adverse cardiovascular programming in OBF1 compared with CONF1 at fetal and mid-life stages [18, 21]. In those studies, OBF1 fetuses showed increased heart, left ventricle (LV), and right ventricle (RV) mass, even when corrected for fetal body mass, at mid (50%) and late (90%) gestation [17, 20, 2224]. For the current study, we hypothesized that diet-induced obesity during gestation would result in adverse cardiovascular phenotypes in first-generation offspring that would have functional consequences in juvenile and advanced ages.

Materials and methods

Animals

All animal procedures were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Wyoming and conducted in AALAC accredited facilities. Multiparous Rambouillet/Columbia cross ewes were bred to a single ram to produce first generation (F1) fetuses and lambs. Ewes were randomly assigned to either a control (CON) or obese (OB) diet 60 d prior to conception through term. Diets consisted of a pelleted ration, supplemented with high quality alfalfa, calculated to provide 100% (CON) or 150% (OB) of the nutritional requirements recommended by the National Research Council [25] (NRC). Diets were maintained until necropsy or through term. After parturition, all ewes were given ad libitum access to high-quality alfalfa hay and were supplemented with corn to meet NRC recommendations for a lactating ewe. Weaning, in necessary groups, occurred at 4 months (PND 120) Due to incidental sample size constraints in male offspring, only female F1 were assessed in the current study. These methods were replicated to produce three separate cohorts, allowing the assessment of three developmental time points; fetal (0.9 of gestation), juvenile (2.5 months after birth), and advanced age (9 years old). Pregnant ewes were sacrificed at 0.9 gestation (d135; term 150 d) for fetal tissue collection for n = 5 CONF1 and n = 6 OBF1 (Sedation and euthanasia was performed using ketamine, isoflurane, and exsanguination). All other ewes were allowed to lamb unassisted, and F1 were housed together with their age group and maintained on 100% NRC recommendations throughout life. At 2.5 months of age blood pressure and echocardiograms were recorded for n = 9 CONF1 and n = 6 OBF1 lambs. Similarly, blood pressure and echocardiograms were recorded in n = 5 CONF1 and n = 8 OBF1 ewes at 9 years of age.

Histochemistry

For fetal tissue assessment, fetal aortas were collected, placed in a tissue cassette (Tissue Tek; Miles Labs, Elkhart, IN), fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in a phosphate buffer (pH 7.4; 0.12 M), and paraffin embedded as previously described [23]. Aorta sections (5 μm) were taken from the descending aorta midway through the abdomen from each fetus for staining. Sections were deparaffinized, and stained using Van Gieson, Masson Trichrome, and hematoxylin and eosin staining protocols according to manufacturer instructions (Millipore sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA). Sections were imaged using the stitched image function of CellSens software, using a 4x objective on an Olympus BX51 and a Qimage Retiga EXi camera. All histology analysis was done by a single, blinded technician. Three consecutive sections were analyzed for wall thickness measurements which were recorded using ImageJ software. Six locations equally spaced apart along each aorta section produced an average thickness estimate (6 measurements * 3 sections– 18 measurements/subject). Color deconvolution of all images was accomplished using ImageJ software after selecting the corresponding staining analysis, and mean intensity of elastin (Colour 2 image—red) and collagen (Colour 2 image -blue) expression were determined using the measure command. Optical Density (OD) was determined using OD = log10(mean intensity/max intensity), where max intensity = 255 (for 8 bit images).

Blood pressure

Animals were moved from their housing pens to a smaller confinement area. Three lambs were taken at a time from the group and haltered to a stationary trimming stand to restrict movement and allow access to their ears. The dorsal side of the ear was shaved with livestock clippers, scrubbed thoroughly with iodine and 70% ethanol, dried, and treated with lidocaine gel (2%) to numb the area. An experienced technician catheterized the auricular artery with a 24 gauge x 1” catheter. The catheter was held in place by the technician while a second technician attached a sterile extension tube, primed with saline, from the catheter to the transducer of the blood pressure monitor (BM5–VET patient monitor, Grady Medical Systems, Murrieta, CA, USA). Once the blood pressure monitor was displaying steady and consistent blood pressure readings (about 30 seconds), three separate readings, 1 minute apart, of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) were recorded. After successful data recording, catheters were removed and the area was wiped clean with ethanol, and light pressure was applied with gauze until bleeding stopped. Animals were returned to their housing pens, and three new animals were brought to the stand for assessment. This cycle continued until all animals were assessed. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was determined as: MAP = [(2*DBP)+SBP]/3. Pulse pressure (PP) was determined as: PP = SBP-DBP.

Echocardiogram

Echocardiograms were recorded on conscious animals, laying on their right side, restrained on a custom-built table. Animals were restrained using nylon ropes around their hind- and forelimbs and secured to the table using nylon netting and adjustable straps. The observation table had a small (12-inch diameter) hole in the bottom that allowed the transducer to access the animal. In vivo cardiovascular performance was recorded using a Hewlett Packard Sonos 5500 echocardiography unit (Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA, USA). A 2.0–4.0 MHz cardiovascular specific probe was placed in the parasternal, short axis orientation to record the LV and RV systolic and diastolic heart dimensions. Three loops of M-mode data were recorded for each animal, and data were averaged from 3 beat cycles per loop to determine fractional shortening (FS), systolic and diastolic interventricular septum thickness (IVSs, IVSd), systolic and diastolic left ventricle internal diameter (LVIDs, LVIDd), and systolic and diastolic left ventricle posterior wall thickness (LVPWs, LVPWd). Heart rate was calculated from the time it took for three beat cycles, and used to calculate CO. End-systolic volume (ESV), end-diastolic volume (EDV), stroke volume (SV), ejection fraction (EF), and cardiac output (CO) were calculated from M-mode data using the following equations:

ESV=72.4+LVIDs*LVIDs3EDV=72.4+LVIDd*LVIDd3SV=EDVESVEF=SVEDV*100CO=SV*HR

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure in SAS (SAS Inst. Inc, Cary, NC, USA) with treatment in the model statement. When interactions were not significant they were removed from the final model. Differences in least square means were determined using the PDIFF statement in the model. Significant differences were determined at p<0.05, and tendencies at p<0.1. Results are presented as mean ± SEM.

Results

Histochemistry

Aortic measurements revealed that aortic walls in OBF1 fetuses were thicker (p<0.05) than in CONF1 (610.5 ± 51.81 μm vs. 754.1 ± 56.52 μm). Masson trichrome staining (Fig 1A and 1B) revealed a tendency (p = 0.063) for greater collagen density in OBF1 aortas (0.11 ± 0.009 vs. 0.13 ± 0.008). Van Gieson staining (Fig 1C and 1D) revealed lower (p<0.05) density of elastin in OBF1 aortas relative to CONF1 (0.62 ± 0.005 vs. 0.049 ± 0.003). Together, there was 48% increase (p<0.01) in the aortic collagen:elastin ratio in OBF1 fetuses, relative to CONF1 fetuses (1.9 ± 0.18 vs. 2.7 ± 0.35, respectively).

Fig 1. Fetal aorta sections.

Fig 1

Masson trichrome and Van Gieson staining results from fetal aorta sections for CONF1 (n = 5) and OBF1 (n = 6) fetal aorta sections at dG 135. † means show a trend (p<0.1) between groups. *means differ (p<0.05) between groups.

Blood pressure

Juvenile OBF1 exhibited elevated (p<0.05) SBP relative to CONF1 (101.2 ± 1.51 vs. 107.9 ± 3.42 mmHg for CONF1 vs OBF1, respectively), while DBP was not different between groups (81.9 ± 2.5 vs. 84.3 ±3.1 mmHg for CONF1 vs OBF1, respectively). Juvenile MAP, PP, and HR were also similar (Table 1).

Table 1. F1 lambs invasive blood pressure.

Measurements for CONF1 (n = 9) and OBF1 (n = 6) lambs at 2.5 months of age.

  CONF1 OBF1
SBP 101.2 ± 1.51a 107.9 ± 3.42b
DBP 81.96 ± 2.5 84.3 ± 3.1
MAP 87.8 ± 2.27 92.14 ± 2.68
PP 20.5 ± 2.11 23.63 ± 2.67
HR 127.5 ± 6.28 136.9 ± 7.41

Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), and p-value from a one-tailed t-test. Systolic blood pressure (SBP). Diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Mean arterial pressure (MAP). Pulse Pressure (PP). Heart rate (HR). a,b means with different superscripts differ (p<0.05) within a measurement.

Aged OBF1 ewes showed decreased (p<0.05) SBP and DBP relative to CONF1, resulting in decreased MAP (Table 2). No treatment differences were found in aged ewe PP or HR (Table 2).

Table 2. Aged F1 ewe invasive blood pressure.

Measurements for CONF1 (n = 5) and OBF1 (n = 8) ewes at 9 years of age: Treatment analysis results.

  CONF1 OBF1
SBP 127.9 ± 4.71a 112.5 ± 3.73b
DBP 97.7 ± 4.65a 86.6 ± 3.68b
MAP 107.7 ± 4.0a 97.3 ± 3.38b
PP 30.2 ± 4.07 23.5 ± 3.22
HR 77.1 ± 4.53 66.7 ± 3.83

Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), and p-value from a one-tailed t-test. Systolic blood pressure (SBP). Diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Mean arterial pressure (MAP). Pulse Pressure (PP). Heart rate (HR). a,b means with different superscripts differ (p<0.05) within a measurement.

Echocardiography

Short axis echocardiography revealed no treatment differences in juvenile lambs (Fig 2). Further, no differences in ESV, EDV, SV or EF were found between lamb treatment groups (Fig 3). In aged ewes, no differences were found in HR or diastolic parameters, but OBF1 ewes had greater (p<0.05) LVIDs, a trend (p<0.1) for reduced IVSs, and reduced (P<0.05) LVPWs, FS, and CO (Fig 4). ESV trended (p<0.1) toward an increase in OBF1 ewes, but no differences were found in EDV between treatment groups (Fig 5). Together, ESV and EDV resulted in a trend (p<0.07) for decreased SV (80.3 ± 8.8 vs. 62.4 ± 7.5 mL), and a reduced (p<0.01) EF (83.7 ± 3.1 vs. 71.6 ± 2.9%) (Fig 5).

Fig 2. Short axis echocardiography results for 2.5-month-old F1 lambs.

Fig 2

CONF1 (n = 9) and OBF1 (n = 6) lambs. Systolic and diastolic interventricular septum thickness (IVSs, IVSd). Systolic and diastolic left ventricle internal diameter (LVIDs, LVIDd). Systolic and diastolic left ventricle posterior wall thickness (LVPWs, LVPWd). Fractional shortening (FS). Heart rate (HR). Cardiac output (CO). † means show a trend (p<0.1). *means differ (p<0.05).

Fig 3. Echocardiography calculations for 2.5-month-old F1 lambs.

Fig 3

CONF1 (n = 9) and OBF1 (n = 6) lambs. End-systolic volume (ESV). End-diastolic volume (EDV). Stroke volume (SV). Ejection fraction (EF). † means show a trend (p<0.1). *means differ (p<0.05).

Fig 4. Short axis echocardiography results for 9-year-old F1 ewes.

Fig 4

CONF1 (n = 5) and OBF1 (n = 8) ewes. Systolic and diastolic interventricular septum thickness (IVSs, IVSd). Systolic and diastolic left ventricle internal diameter (LVIDs, LVIDd). Systolic and diastolic left ventricle posterior wall thickness (LVPWs, LVPWd). Fractional shortening (FS). Heart rate (HR). Cardiac output (CO). † means show a trend (p<0.1). *means differ (p<0.05).

Fig 5. Echocardiography calculation results for 9-year-old ewes.

Fig 5

CONF1 (n = 5) and OBF1 (n = 8) ewes. End-systolic volume (ESV). End-diastolic volume (EDV). Stroke volume (SV). Ejection fraction (EF). † means show a trend (p<0.1). *means differ (p<0.05).

Discussion

Novel to this study, we demonstrate vascular remodeling in OBF1 fetuses, as the collagen:elastin ratio and aortic wall thickness is markedly increased in OBF1. The collagen:elastin ratio is a key determinant of aortic elasticity, increases in response to mechanical stress, and is positively correlated with cardiovascular risk factors [26, 27]. Although the mechanisms are debated between animal models [28], prior studies in sheep have demonstrated that cortisol is a potent regulator of vascular collagen and elastin synthesis [29]. Therefore, increased cortisol signaling is likely a primary mechanism for the vascular remodeling in observed in OBF1 fetuses, as we have previously demonstrated hypercortisolemia in maternal and fetal plasma throughout gestation in OB animals [30].

The myocardial hypertrophy previously observed in OBF1 fetuses may be augmented by decreased aortic compliance similar to what is seen in transverse aortic constriction models [31], as the aorta is less capable of reducing cardiovascular strain during systole. The aorta also serves as a passage for blood flow and as a reservoir that maintains blood flow during diastole. The “windkessel function” describes the aortas ability to absorb systolic output via elastic expansion, and maintain propulsion of blood during diastole. A recent study demonstrated that the windkessel function is impaired in baboon models of maternal diet-induced fetal programming [28]. Normally, the windkessel function reduces the stress on the left ventricle by reducing afterload. When aortic compliance is reduced, the aorta cannot expand to its full potential, leading to increased luminal pressure (as defined by Poiseuilles law: Flow Rate = (Pressure*〖Radius〗^4)/(Viscosity*Length)). Increased arterial pressure, or increased afterload, has long been known to induce hypertrophic cardiomyopathy as a response to increased workload [32, 33] and as a mechanism to reduce myocardial wall stress (LaPlace’s law: Intraventricular pressure = 2*(wall thickness)/radius). Data from the present study suggests that increases of the fetal aortic collagen:elastin ratio may be increasing the workload of the fetal heart, contributing to the previously observed cardiac hypertrophy in OBF1 fetal hearts, as hemodynamics are a primary determinant of fetal cardiac development [34].

Our echocardiography data suggests that the changes previously observed in fetal cardiac morphology [2124] normalize by 2.5 months of age. This is not entirely surprising given that many other programmed phenotypes that we have observed in the fetal stages have seemingly normalized after birth [14, 24]. However, these OBF1 lambs still exhibited cardiovascular aberration, as their systolic blood pressure was greater than CONF1 lambs. These data therefore suggest that OBF1 lamb hearts may be exposed to a greater workload both pre- and postnatally. Even a mild hypertensive state over the life course can have significant effects on cardiometabolic health outcomes, as epidemiologic data suggests that increased SBP is a strong predictor of future heart disease [35].

Echocardiography also showed that aged OBF1 ewe hearts are morphometrically and functionally altered as IVSs, LVPWs, EF, FS, and SV were lower, and LVIDs was greater in OBF1 ewes relative to CONF1. Additionally, advance age OBF1 exhibited decreased SBP, DBP, MAP, EF, and tendencies for increased ESV and decreased SV. With these data suggesting changes in the opposite directions of what we observed at the juvenile life stage, the most plausible scenario is that the increased cardiovascular strain in the developmental and early life stages eventually progresses in to a phenotype consistent with symptoms of cardiac failure, and dilated cardiomyopathy [36]. Evidence to support this scenario can be taken from epidemiological studies, where hypertension earlier in life preludes future heart failure [37]. The early life increases in OBF1 SBP preluded decreased SBP, DBP, and MAP in advanced age OBF1 ewes, suggesting the hearts of aged OBF1 ewes may be failing to maintain normal cardiac function.

It is important to consider the strengths and limitations of the current study. Foremost, this study employs the use of a large animal model, with many similarities to humans in terms of cardiovascular and reproductive physiology. Further, it looks at multiple timepoints throughout the lifespan, allowing both for developmental and age-related changes in response to maternal obesity, and ties together investigated time points in our previous studies. However, this study is limited only to the beginning and near-ending of the life span. Most of our prior studies in this model demonstrate that offspring phenotypes from OBF0 ewes are indistinguishable from controls until they’re subjected to a metabolic stress such as an ad libitum feeding trial, or pregnancy [16, 38]. The timepoints in this study were specifically chosen to examine ages at which the animals were most likely to exhibit phenotypic differences, but still lack many years of the lifespan that may provide important data to better understand how programmed phenotypes may change over the life course. Additionally, the blood pressure and echocardiography techniques have limitations that require consideration. Although these animals were carefully handled and very used to interactions with technicians, a stress response to these procedures can still be anticipated. Therefore, the cardiovascular performance is unlikely at “baseline” as sympathetic signaling is likely altering the hemodynamics in these animals. Fortunately, animals in both groups were handled identically, allowing for group comparisons. Finally, only females were examined in this study. Given that cardiovascular outcomes differ in response to sex-specific endocrinology [39], these data may not accurately represent male physiology.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that in sheep, maternal obesity programs cardiovascular risk factors at the fetal stage that have consequences in later life. The increase in fetal collagen:elastin ratio shows that aortic composition is changed in OBF1 fetuses. The collagen:elastin ratio is a key factor in determining the aortas ability to reduce afterload via elastic expansion. When the collagen:elastin ratio increases, aortic distensibility is decreased. With increased aortic stiffness, the fetal heart has to work harder to eject blood, predisposing cardiac hypertrophy, as observed in prenatal OBF1 fetuses, in response to the increased workload (Wang et al., 2010). F1 lambs show similar cardiac morphology, suggesting normalization of cardiac structure at a young age. However, OBF1 lambs exhibit elevated SBP, indicating that their hearts still face increased strain after birth relative to CONF1. Upon reaching advanced age, OBF1 exhibit phenotypes consistent with heart failure. Together, these data show that cardiovascular structure and function is altered in early development resulting from maternal obesity, and these early developmental changes have consequences later in life.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge students and staff of the Center for the Study of Fetal Programming for their assistance in animal care and data collection.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the following reference: Pankey, Chris (2022), “Maternal Obese Ovine Cardiovascular Data”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/x8726jyg2v.1.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Dual Purpose with Dual Benefits grant from the National Institutes of Health (https://grants.nih.gov/funding/index.htm), grant number R01 HD070096-01A1, awarded to SPF. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Prevention CfDCa. The health effects of overweight and obesity https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/effects/index.html [updated 06/23/2022; cited 2022].
  • 3.Kenchaiah S, Evans JC, Levy D, Wilson PW, Benjamin EJ, et al. Obesity and the risk of heart failure. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;347(5):305–13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schmieder RE, Messerli FH. Does obesity influence early target organ damage in hypertensive patients? Circulation. 1993;87(5):1482–8. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.87.5.1482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Deputy NP, Sharma AJ, Kim SY. Gestational weight gain—United States, 2012 and 2013. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2015;64(43):1215. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6443a3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from www.marchofdimes.org/peristats.
  • 7.Hanson MA, Gluckman PD. Developmental origins of health and disease: new insights. Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology. 2008;102(2):90–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2007.00186.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Menting MD, Mintjens S, van de Beek C, Frick CJ, Ozanne SE, Limpens J, et al. Maternal obesity in pregnancy impacts offspring cardiometabolic health: Systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies. Obesity Reviews. 2019;20(5):675–85. doi: 10.1111/obr.12817 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Stubert J, Reister F, Hartmann S, Janni W. The risks associated with obesity in pregnancy. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. 2018;115(16):276. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Reynolds RM, Allan KM, Raja EA, Bhattacharya S, McNeill G, et al. Maternal obesity during pregnancy and premature mortality from cardiovascular event in adult offspring: follow-up of 1 323 275 person years. Bmj. 2013;347. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fernandez-Twinn DS, Blackmore HL, Siggens L, Giussani DA, Cross CM, et al. The programming of cardiac hypertrophy in the offspring by maternal obesity is associated with hyperinsulinemia, AKT, ERK, and mTOR activation. Endocrinology. 2012;153(12):5961–71. doi: 10.1210/en.2012-1508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Khan I. Taylor PD, Dekou V, Seed PT, Lakasing L, et al. Gender-linked hypertension in offspring of lard-fed pregnant rats Hypertension. 2003;41:168–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Blackmore HL, Niu Y, Fernandez-Twinn DS, Tarry-Adkins JL, et al. Maternal Diet-induced Obesity Programs Cardiovascular Dysfunction in Adult Male Mouse Offspring Independent of Current Body Weight. Endocrinology. 2014;155(10):3970–80. doi: 10.1210/en.2014-1383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Odhiambo JF, Pankey CL, Ghnenis AB, Ford SP. A review of maternal nutrition during pregnancy and impact on the offspring through development: evidence from animal models of over-and undernutrition. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020;17(18):6926. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Long NM, George LA, Uthlaut AB, Smith DT, Nijland MJ, et al. Maternal obesity and increased nutrient intake before and during gestation in the ewe results in altered growth, adiposity, and glucose tolerance in adult offspring1. Journal of Animal Science. 2010;88(11):3546–53. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pankey C, Odhiambo J, Smith A, Ford S. Effects of maternal obesity in an ovine model on metabolic outcomes in F2 adults and F3 neonates. Domestic Animal Endocrinology. 2021;76:106628. doi: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2021.106628 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kandadi MR, Hua Y, Zhu M, Turdi S, Nathanielsz PW, et al. Influence of gestational overfeeding on myocardial proinflammatory mediators in fetal sheep heart. The Journal of nutritional biochemistry. 2013;24(11):1982–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2013.07.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 18.Ghnenis AB, Odhiambo JF, McCormick RJ, Nathanielsz PW, et al. Maternal obesity in the ewe increases cardiac ventricular expression of glucocorticoid receptors, proinflammatory cytokines and fibrosis in adult male offspring. PloS one. 2017;12(12):e0189977. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189977 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wang Q, Zhu C, Sun M, Maimaiti R, Ford SP, et al. Maternal obesity impairs fetal cardiomyocyte contractile function in sheep. The FASEB Journal. 2019;33(2):2587–98. doi: 10.1096/fj.201800988R [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wang J, Ma H, Tong C, Zhang H, Lawlis GB, et al. Overnutrition and maternal obesity in sheep pregnancy alter the JNK‐IRS‐1 signaling cascades and cardiac function in the fetal heart. The FASEB Journal. 2010;24(6):2066–76. doi: 10.1096/fj.09-142315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Huang Y, Yan X, Zhao JX, Zhu MJ, McCormick RJ, et al. Maternal obesity induces fibrosis in fetal myocardium of sheep. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2010;299(6):E968–E75. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.00434.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dong F, Ford SP, Nijland MJ, Nathanielsz PW, et al. Influence of maternal undernutrition and overfeeding on cardiac ciliary neurotrophic factor receptor and ventricular size in fetal sheep. The Journal of nutritional biochemistry. 2008;19(6):409–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2007.06.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fan X, Turdi S, Ford SP, Hua Y, Nijland MJ, et al. Influence of gestational overfeeding on cardiac morphometry and hypertrophic protein markers in fetal sheep. The Journal of nutritional biochemistry. 2011;22(1):30–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2009.11.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Long NM, Rule DC, Tuersunjiang N, Nathanielsz PW, et al. Maternal obesity in sheep increases fatty acid synthesis, upregulates nutrient transporters, and increases adiposity in adult male offspring after a feeding challenge. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0122152. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of sheep. 6th ed. National academy Press. 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sethi S, Rivera O, Oliveros R, Chilton R. Aortic stiffness: pathophysiology, clinical implications, and approach to treatment. Integrated blood pressure control. 2014;7:29. doi: 10.2147/IBPC.S59535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dodson RB, Rozance PJ, Hunter KS, Ferguson VL. Increased stiffness of the abdominal aorta with intrauterine growth restriction in the near-term fetal sheep. ASME 2012 Summer Bioengineering Conference 2012. p. 1251–2. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kuo AH, Li J, Li C, Huber HF, Nathanielsz PW, Clarke GD. Poor perinatal growth impairs baboon aortic windkessel function. Journal of developmental origins of health and disease. 2018;9(2):137–42. doi: 10.1017/S2040174417000770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Thompson JA, Richardson BS, Gagnon R, Regnault TR. Chronic intrauterine hypoxia interferes with aortic development in the late gestation ovine fetus. The Journal of physiology. 2011;589(13):3319–32. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2011.210625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ghnenis AB, Odhiambo JF, Smith AM, Pankey CL, Nathanielsz PW, et al. A heretical view: rather than a solely placental protective function, placental 11β hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 2 also provides substrate for fetal peripheral cortisol synthesis in obese pregnant ewes. Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease. 2021;12(1):94–100. Epub 2020/03/10. doi: 10.1017/S2040174420000112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nakamura A, Rokosh DG, Paccanaro M, Yee RR, Simpson PC, et al. LV systolic performance improves with development of hypertrophy after transverse aortic constriction in mice. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 2001;281(3):H1104–H12. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.2001.281.3.H1104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Linzbach A. Heart failure from the point of view of quantitative anatomy*. The American journal of cardiology. 1960;5(3):370–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Frohlich ED, Tarazi RC. Is arterial pressure the sole factor responsible for hypertensive cardiac hypertrophy? The American journal of cardiology. 1979;44(5):959–63. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(79)90229-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Thornburg KL. The programming of cardiovascular disease. Journal of developmental origins of health and disease. 2015;6(5):366–76. doi: 10.1017/S2040174415001300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kannel WB, Gordon T, Schwartz MJ. Systolic versus diastolic blood pressure and risk of coronary heart disease: the Framingham study. The American journal of cardiology. 1971;27(4):335–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Weintraub RG, Semsarian C, Macdonald P. Dilated cardiomyopathy. The Lancet. 2017;390(10092):400–14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31713-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Franklin SS, Wong ND. Hypertension and cardiovascular disease: contributions of the Framingham Heart Study. Global heart. 2013;8(1):49–57. doi: 10.1016/j.gheart.2012.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pankey C, Walton M, Odhiambo J, Smith A, Ghnenis A, et al. Intergenerational impact of maternal overnutrition and obesity throughout pregnancy in sheep on metabolic syndrome in grandsons and granddaughters. Domestic animal endocrinology. 2017;60:67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2017.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Vitale C, Mendelsohn ME, Rosano GMC. Gender differences in the cardiovascular effect of sex hormones. Nature Reviews Cardiology. 2009;6(8):532–42. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2009.105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Christopher Torrens

4 May 2022

PONE-D-22-06151Cardiovascular consequences of maternal obesity throughout the lifespan in first generation sheepPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pankey,

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 by the reviewers during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 18 2022 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: https://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,

Christopher Torrens

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was supported by the Dual Purpose with Dual Benefits grant from the National Institutes of Health (https://grants.nih.gov/funding/index.htm), grant number R01 HD070096-01A1, awarded to SPF.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. 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.

[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: Yes

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: The study by Pankey et al examine the short and long-term cardiovascular effects of maternal obesity in a sheep model. Ewes were fed an obesogenic diet prior to and during pregnancy and offspring were examined in late gestation, young life and old age. Offspring from obese mothers had an increased aortic collagen:elastin ratio in fetal life, systolic blood pressure was increased in young life but decreased in old age. Echocardiography revealed changes in old age, notably a reduced ejection fraction. The authors suggest the increase in cardiac workload in early life led to features of heart failure in later life.

The study complements other work performed with this maternal obesity model and the authors should be commended for studying offspring to such an old age.

Comments:

- Line 66 The introduction would benefit from briefly stating some more details of the well-characterised model, for context, including more specifics of the cardiovascular outcomes previously observed in fetal and mid-life. In part the rationale of the study was to examine effects at different ages not previously reported (the Discussion starts with this instead).

- Line 56 onwards –the use of ‘OB’ to refer to the offspring of different ages and using ‘ewe’ for both mothers and offspring is slightly confusing. ‘OB ewes’ reads to me as the mothers so it is harder to distinguish maternal and offspring outcomes.

- There is a lack of detail about the experimental protocol. Although this is a well utilised model, the manuscript would benefit from some more basic information eg. relative obesity achieved by the OB diet in pregnancy, body weights/composition at each age.

- Blood pressure measurements.

• The wording here (line 110) suggests measurements were taken on 3 animals when it is clear that 6-9 animals were recorded. Please clarify what was done.

• Line 117 Was there any validation done about stablisation of blood pressure over a longer period given the invasive nature of the blood pressure measurement? 30 seconds seems very short. Could the authors comment on the potential effect of stress of the blood pressure and echocardiogram procedures on the results?

• It is not clear whether the same animals were used at 2.5 months and 9 years. It should state that the catheter was removed after the measurement at 2.5 months.

- It is not clear whether the same animals were used at 2.5 months and 9 years. It should state that the catheter was removed after the measurement at 2.5 months.

- The authors propose that “increased cardiovascular strain in the developmental and early life stages eventually progresses in to a phenotype consistent with symptoms of cardiac failure”. It would have been interesting to have aortic measurements from the 9 year-old animals. Could the authors provide any more evidence that the changes seen in fetal life persisting till old age in this model or similar?

- The authors should comment on the potential role of sex, given that only female offspring were studied, and in reference to the previous work with this model. There was no information about the sex ratio in the fetal cohort.

Minor comments:

- Line 145 states sex was included in the model but only female sheep were examined

- Line 163 should read ‘SBP relative to CONF1’ not F2

- I suggest using the term juvenile for the lambs at 2.5 months rather than neonatal. This age is no longer neonatal.

Reviewer #2: The study from Pankey and colleagues hypothesized that diet-induced obesity throughout pregnancy would cause cardiovascular dysfunction in neonatal and adult offspring.

In the first paragraph of the introduction it is not clear whether this is referring to offspring of an obese mother or of individuals whom are obese. Although the next paragraph is clearly about offspring it would be pertinent to make it quite clear that the first is about an individual risk of cardiovascular disease. Further in the 4th paragraph it is not explicitly obvious whether the ewes that are referenced are pregnant during the experiments in which the data is reported.

Line 76 I would rearrange the words fetuses and lambs. The way it is written is confusing it is possible that one might interpret this as the lamb getting pregnant to the produce a fetus (F2).

Could you elaborate on the sample size constraints regarding male offspring? Was this as a result of in utero death in the OB group?

It is my opinion that ‘neonatal’ is not an appropriate name for the 2.5 month group, this age is significantly greater than what could be deemed to be neonatal.

At what age were the lambs weaned? Was ewe milk collected for assessment of caloric intake?

How were the samples sizes determined? N=5 seems low for ovine studies.

I believe it is unnecessary to refer to the lambs as F1 – there is no F2 and therefore it merely creates unnecessary confusing.

Precisely where were the aorta sections taken?

Line 94 and 115. This section should not be referred to as immunohistochemistry. There are no immunohistochemical methods described in this section.

Were the lambs frequently handled? I am curious because I worry the lambs would have been highly stressed during the blood pressure and echocardiography recordings and that this may have impacted the blood pressure recordings.

The biometry of the cohorts should be described, particularly as the weight is referred to in the discussion.

The ethics are described in the submission (and apologies if I missed it) but not in the manuscript itself.

Is Line 153-6 referring to fetuses? Could you also please report on the 2.5 month and 9 year data?

Fig 1. Annotation of significance is only required on one group.

Was there any difference in trajectory of cardiovascular outcomes over time between groups?

**********

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: Yes: Beth Allison

[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. 2022 Sep 2;17(9):e0274214. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274214.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Jun 2022

The text below is also included as an uploaded file, and is color coded in that version for ease of reading.

PONE-D-22-06151

Cardiovascular consequences of maternal obesity throughout the lifespan in first generation sheep

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pankey,

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 by the reviewers during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 18 2022 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: https://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,

Christopher Torrens

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was supported by the Dual Purpose with Dual Benefits grant from the National Institutes of Health (https://grants.nih.gov/funding/index.htm), grant number R01 HD070096-01A1, awarded to SPF.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. 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.

[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: Yes

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

Dear reviewers: Please note that the updated line numbers referenced in our responses are in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”, and the revisions must be showing for the line numbers to be accurate.

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: The study by Pankey et al examine the short and long-term cardiovascular effects of maternal obesity in a sheep model. Ewes were fed an obesogenic diet prior to and during pregnancy and offspring were examined in late gestation, young life and old age. Offspring from obese mothers had an increased aortic collagen:elastin ratio in fetal life, systolic blood pressure was increased in young life but decreased in old age. Echocardiography revealed changes in old age, notably a reduced ejection fraction. The authors suggest the increase in cardiac workload in early life led to features of heart failure in later life.

The study complements other work performed with this maternal obesity model and the authors should be commended for studying offspring to such an old age.

Comments:

- Line 66 The introduction would benefit from briefly stating some more details of the well-characterised model, for context, including more specifics of the cardiovascular outcomes previously observed in fetal and mid-life. In part the rationale of the study was to examine effects at different ages not previously reported (the Discussion starts with this instead).

Thank you for this comment. We agree, and have added lines 55-60 to address this concern. We had also discussed prior findings on lines 54-61 (now lines 63-71), but recognize how the order and wording may have misled the reader to assume that was not from our model. As such, we also reordered and revised this section of the introduction.

- Line 56 onwards –the use of ‘OB’ to refer to the offspring of different ages and using ‘ewe’ for both mothers and offspring is slightly confusing. ‘OB ewes’ reads to me as the mothers so it is harder to distinguish maternal and offspring outcomes.

Thank you for this comment, we agree and have revised all “OB” throughout the manuscript to either OBF0 or OBF1 to specifically label which generation is being discussed. Similar revisions were also done for CON subjects.

- There is a lack of detail about the experimental protocol. Although this is a well utilised model, the manuscript would benefit from some more basic information eg. relative obesity achieved by the OB diet in pregnancy, body weights/composition at each age.

Thank you for addressing this point. In response, we have added comments throughout the manuscript and added a citation (Long et al., 2010 – citation #15) that addresses the phenotypes questioned in this remark. We feel it is best to provide citations in this case, opposed to discussing in depth, as the mentioned citation is a complete manuscript addressing your concerns and we fear it would be too much detail for the current manuscript. We also discuss the cardiovascular specific phenotypes in this model on lines 78-81 to further address this concern.

- Blood pressure measurements.

• The wording here (line 110) suggests measurements were taken on 3 animals when it is clear that 6-9 animals were recorded. Please clarify what was done.

Thank you, additional information has been added to lines 125-126 and 134-138 to clarify this procedure.

• Line 117 Was there any validation done about stablisation of blood pressure over a longer period given the invasive nature of the blood pressure measurement? 30 seconds seems very short. Could the authors comment on the potential effect of stress of the blood pressure and echocardiogram procedures on the results?

There were no validation procedures performed, as the stabilization period was intended to ensure the equipment was working properly, opposed to waiting for the animals to reach “baseline”. Indeed, we agree this needs addressed and have added comments to the limitations in the discussion (lines 291-296).

• It is not clear whether the same animals were used at 2.5 months and 9 years. It should state that the catheter was removed after the measurement at 2.5 months.

Different animals were used for each cohort, as we outline on lines 98-100: “These methods were replicated to produce three separate cohorts, allowing the assessment of three developmental time points; fetal (0.9 of gestation), juvenile (2.5 months after birth), and advanced age (9 years old)”.

We have added details for the blood pressure procedure on lines 134-138 to address the second concern.

- The authors propose that “increased cardiovascular strain in the developmental and early life stages eventually progresses in to a phenotype consistent with symptoms of cardiac failure”. It would have been interesting to have aortic measurements from the 9 year-old animals. Could the authors provide any more evidence that the changes seen in fetal life persisting till old age in this model or similar?

We cannot currently provide more information in this model, but efforts are under-way to continue examining the 9-year-old ewes, and tissue samples will eventually be collected at death/sacrifice to specifically address this query. Hopefully, these efforts will generate additional data to increase our understanding of this progression. Since we cannot currently provide these data, we have cited evidence to support our rationale (citation 37 – line 276)

- The authors should comment on the potential role of sex, given that only female offspring were studied, and in reference to the previous work with this model. There was no information about the sex ratio in the fetal cohort.

Thank you for providing this critique. In response, we have added a comment about the potential role of sex-specific endocrinology that may influence cardiovascular health, and provided citation #40 to support this point (lines 296-298).

Minor comments:

- Line 145 states sex was included in the model but only female sheep were examined

Thank you for catching this error. We have revised the statement appropriately (now line 163) to remove the term.

- Line 163 should read ‘SBP relative to CONF1’ not F2

Thank you, this error has been revised (now line 181)

- I suggest using the term juvenile for the lambs at 2.5 months rather than neonatal. This age is no longer neonatal.

Thank you for this suggestion. We concur that juvenile is more accurate, and have replaced that term throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The study from Pankey and colleagues hypothesized that diet-induced obesity throughout pregnancy would cause cardiovascular dysfunction in neonatal and adult offspring.

In the first paragraph of the introduction it is not clear whether this is referring to offspring of an obese mother or of individuals whom are obese. Although the next paragraph is clearly about offspring it would be pertinent to make it quite clear that the first is about an individual risk of cardiovascular disease. Further in the 4th paragraph it is not explicitly obvious whether the ewes that are referenced are pregnant during the experiments in which the data is reported.

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We have added the term “individual” in to the opening paragraph to alleviate this concern (line 34).

Line 76 I would rearrange the words fetuses and lambs. The way it is written is confusing it is possible that one might interpret this as the lamb getting pregnant to the produce a fetus (F2).

Thank you, we have rearranged the terms in response to this comment (now line 91).

Could you elaborate on the sample size constraints regarding male offspring? Was this as a result of in utero death in the OB group?

Thank you for this question. The sample size constraints were purely incidental, and there were no deaths or illnesses in males that contributed to these constraints. To add clarity to the text, the term incidental was included on line 97.

It is my opinion that ‘neonatal’ is not an appropriate name for the 2.5 month group, this age is significantly greater than what could be deemed to be neonatal.

Thank you for this comment. Reviewer one had a similar concern, and we agree with you both. In response, we have substituted the term “juvenile” throughout the text to replace “neonatal”.

At what age were the lambs weaned? Was ewe milk collected for assessment of caloric intake?

Thank you for this question. The juvenile lambs were not weaned, as weaning would typically occur at 4 months (PND 120). Milk samples were not assessed, but after parturition all ewes (both groups) were maintained on 100% NRC requirements for a lactating ewe (discussed on lines 87-89). So the experimental diet only occurred from 60 d prior to conception through term (line 84). We have added detail to line 97 to address this concern.

How were the samples sizes determined? N=5 seems low for ovine studies.

Our power analysis on several end-points in our published studies show that we have better than 80% power to detect biologically important differences with as small as 5 animals per group (80% power, p=0.05) to discern treatment differences. A sample size of 4-6 is not uncommon in our model for publication

(10.1152/ajpregu.00498.2009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.domaniend.2017.04.002 10.1152/ajpregu.00072.2009 10.1093/jas/sky215).

I believe it is unnecessary to refer to the lambs as F1 – there is no F2 and therefore it merely creates unnecessary confusing.

Thank you for this comment. Although we are not studying F2, the maternal ewes are F0, and we feel this shorthand differentiates these two generations to help the reader know we are discussing the offspring and not the F0 ewes. We feel this is important in this paper as the aged F1 females could also be correctly termed “ewes”. These classifications are also consistent with our prior publications within the same model, which is convenient if reading multiple studies from our group.

Precisely where were the aorta sections taken?

Thank you for this important question. We have revised lines 111-112 to add this detail.

Line 94 and 115. This section should not be referred to as immunohistochemistry. There are no immunohistochemical methods described in this section.

Thank you for noting this error. We have changed the term to the more appropriate “histochemistry” (now lines 108 and 169).

Were the lambs frequently handled? I am curious because I worry the lambs would have been highly stressed during the blood pressure and echocardiography recordings and that this may have impacted the blood pressure recordings.

Thank you for this important question. Reviewer one had similar concerns, and we have added text to lines 291-296 to address these concerns.

The biometry of the cohorts should be described, particularly as the weight is referred to in the discussion.

In response to comments from reviewer one, the text we believe you may be referencing has been moved to the introduction (lines 79-81). These findings were in prior studies, and therefore reporting the data and statistics here would not be conventional, so we have only mentioned the broad outcomes and provided the citations.

We recognize that we may be misinterpreting your intended critique here also, and apologize if that is the case. We are certainly willing to revisit this discussion if we are not adequately addressing your concern.

The ethics are described in the submission (and apologies if I missed it) but not in the manuscript itself.

Thank you for this note, we were not certain by reading the author directions if it was supposed to be in both, so we removed details from the original submission. We now have these descriptions in the manuscript on lines 89-90, and 102-103.

Is Line 153-6 referring to fetuses? Could you also please report on the 2.5 month and 9 year data?

Yes, those results are referring to the fetal tissues that were collected at necropsy (now line 170: “OBF1 fetuses were…”). We do not have tissue samples yet from the juvenile or aged ewe cohort, as they were kept alive for further assessment (lines 102-106 describe these cohorts).

Fig 1. Annotation of significance is only required on one group.

Thank you, we have edited Fig. 1 accordingly.

Was there any difference in trajectory of cardiovascular outcomes over time between groups?

Thank you for this question. Indeed there were differences between OB and CON groups as discussed. As far as differences between OB fetuses, OB juveniles, and OB ewes, we do not yet have adequate data to compare many of the outcomes over time. Future studies are currently in preparation to address this question.

________________________________________

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: Yes: Beth Allison

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Christopher Torrens

24 Aug 2022

Cardiovascular consequences of maternal obesity throughout the lifespan in first generation sheep

PONE-D-22-06151R1

Dear Dr. Pankey,

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,

Christopher Torrens

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All my concerns have been addressed. The manuscript is suitable for publication.

I have no concerns about dual publication, research ethics or publication ethics.

**********

7. 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: Yes: Beth Allison

**********

Acceptance letter

Christopher Torrens

25 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-06151R1

Cardiovascular consequences of maternal obesity throughout the lifespan in first generation sheep

Dear Dr. Pankey:

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

Dr. Christopher Torrens

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the following reference: Pankey, Chris (2022), “Maternal Obese Ovine Cardiovascular Data”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/x8726jyg2v.1.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES