Skip to main content
Animal Nutrition logoLink to Animal Nutrition
. 2022 Jul 22;11:142–151. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2022.07.002

Paternal transgenerational nutritional epigenetic effect: A new insight into nutritional manipulation to reduce the use of antibiotics in animal feeding

Xinyi Li a,c,1, Mengya Wang a,1, Shimin Liu b,1, Xiaodong Chen a,1, Yu Qiao a,d, Xiaojun Yang a, Junhu Yao a,, Shengru Wu a,
PMCID: PMC9527621  PMID: 36204282

Abstract

The use of antibiotics in animal feeding has been banned in many countries because of increasing concerns about the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and potential issues on food safety. Searching for antibiotic substitutes is essential. Applying transgenerational epigenetic technology to animal production could be an alternative. Some environmental changes can be transferred to memory-like responses in the offspring through epigenetic mechanisms without changing the DNA sequence. In this paper, we reviewed those nutrients and non-nutritional additives that have transgenerational epigenetic effects, including some amino acids, vitamins, and polysaccharides. The paternal transgenerational nutritional epigenetic regulation was particularly focused on mechanism of the substantial contribution of male stud animals to the animal industries. We illustrated the effects of paternal transgenerational epigenetics on the metabolism and immunity in farming animals and proposed strategies to modulate male breeding livestock or poultry.

Keywords: Growth, Nutrition, Immune, Transgenerational epigenetic, Antibiotic replacement

1. Introduction

The genetic selection of the growth performance and nutrient optimization in domestic animals has significantly increased their growth performance and shortened their growth cycles (Diao et al., 2018; Gjedrem et al., 2012; Gu et al., 2011; Gutiérrez-Gil et al., 2015). The selection is usually accompanied by increasing metabolic processes that might compromise the immune capacity in the body, leading to the occurrence of epidemiological diseases and retardation of animal growth. To overcome these issues, the use of antibiotics growth promoters (AGPs) was widely adopted in the feed industries. Particularly, AGPs have been used as a growth promoter for a long time to maintain gut health and improve feed conversion efficiency (Dibner and Richards, 2005). However, the use of AGPs has been gradually banned in recent years worldwide due to their harmful roles in disturbing healthy intestinal microbiota and developing antibiotic resistance (Bengtsson and Wierup, 2006; Li et al., 2018d; Wu et al., 2018, 2020a, 2020b). Therefore, the use of AGPs in animal feeding has been gradually banned in recent years worldwide. However, banning the use of AGPs may increase the risk of conditioned pathogen infection in domestic animals and increase the feeding costs, meanwhile, it might increase the risk of infection in human beings (Huyghebaert et al., 2011; Laxminarayan et al., 2016). These situations highlight the need to explore novel alternatives to AGPs, which can support the productive potential and maintain the health of domestic animals. Recently, several classes of AGPs replacers have been studied and suggested, such as probiotics, prebiotics, antimicrobial peptides, polysaccharides, feed enzyme additives (Li et al., 2018c, Li et al., 2018d; Wu et al., 2019c; Liu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020a). However, these substitutes have been found not as effective as antibiotics in microecological modulation (Liu et al., 2020; Maria Cardinal et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020a). Hence, exploring new approaches to decrease the immune and metabolic disorders related to no use of AGPs warrants investigating (Maria Cardinal et al., 2019).

A stable gene expression pattern has been built via genetic selection and the use of AGPs for a century. Briefly, continuous genetic improvement of growth performance has continuously improved the metabolism and feed utilization efficiency. Most of the intake energy and nutrients are used for muscle and bone growth and fat accumulation, but less was provided for immune organs and function development (Berghof et al., 2013). For instance, with the broilers' growth performance improvement, the total antibody titers, immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G content, as well as the function of macrophages and natural killer cells of broilers were all significantly reduced (Qureshi and Havenstein, 1994). Further, the heat production of broilers continues to increase, and the anti-stress ability of broilers was significantly decreased (Lara and Rostagno, 2013). Notably, the use of AGPs can help to maintain the health and then improve the growth performance, by overcoming those potential issues induced by the stable gene expression pattern of decreased immune function, increased metabolic heat production, and decreased anti-stress ability (Berghof et al., 2013; Maria Cardinal et al., 2019). In order to maintain the growth performance and health of domestic animals when the AGPs were banned, a novel and stable gene expression pattern should be built, by improving nutritional supplementation through several generations of those domestic animals. The relationships between gene expression patterns and environmental factors, especially nutritional changes, are the core part of the research, which could be easier linked to animal growth performances and immune functions (DelCurto et al., 2013; Uddin et al., 2010; Li et al., 2016; Lv et al., 2019). Therefore, applying transgenerational epigenetic technology to animal production could be an alternative. The altered nutritional supplementation can be transferred to memory-like responses in the offspring through epigenetic mechanisms without changing DNA sequence (Wu et al., 2019a, 2019b). Nutrients that are effective in the regulation of the metabolism and immunity of animals include some functional nutrients and non-nutritional additives, such as amino acids (Phang et al., 2013), vitamins (Joubert et al., 2016), polysaccharides (Wu et al., 2017), probiotics and prebiotics (Kumar et al., 2013), which may be candidates for epigenetic regulation.

In this review, we explore the potential use of some of these improved nutrients supplementation in epigenetic effects on the growth performance and immune function in domestic animals, especially improving the offspring growth and immune and then eliminating the use of antibiotics in domestic animals.

2. Why should paternal transgenerational epigenetic regulation be the focus?

Epigenetics refers to those studies on the inheritance of altered genes expression without DNA sequence mutation during the processes of cell mitosis, cell meiosis, biological development, and reproduction in animals (Sasaki and Matsui, 2008). DNA methylation, histone modification, chromosome encoding, and non-coding RNAs have been suggested to be involved in the regulation and inheritance of gene expression alterations (Sharma, 2017; Tollefsbol, 2014). Research on livestock epigenetics focuses mainly on 2 aspects: how environmental factors gradually alter epigenetic modifications of the genomes, thereby regulating the expression of associated genes, and how these epigenetic modifications and corresponding phenotypes are transmitted to their offspring. The latter aspect can be defined as transgenerational epigenetics and likely, the influence of environmental factors is implemented on epigenetic modifications in the germ cells.

Comparing transgenerational epigenetics with traditional genetics, they both have the transgenerational inheritance ability, but transgenerational epigenetics relates to the gene expression alteration that gradually adapts to the resulting environmental changes, likely being continuous, rather than gene mutation or the significantly increased frequency of one genotyping in traditional genetics (Nicoglou and Merlin, 2017; Tollefsbol, 2014). Herein, it refers to the phenotypic alteration of the offspring without DNA sequence changes. Studies on the mechanisms have found that environmental factors could cause the alterations of DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA expression, leading to the changes in gene expression and physiological phenotypes in parent animals, and as a result, phenotypic alterations appear in their offspring (Tollefsbol, 2014). For instance, Dias and Ressler (2014) exposed F0 mice to an odor (acetophenone) fear condition before the conception and found that subsequently conceived F1 and F2 generations had an increased behavioral sensitivity to acetophenone odor, but not to other odors. Sperm DNA CpG hypomethylation in odorant receptor Olfr151 gene in the conditioned F0 males and F1 naive offspring contributed to the transgenerational epigenetic effects. In a rat model, transient exposure of the gestating females during the period of gonadal sex determination to the endocrine disruptors, vinclozolin (an antiandrogenic compound) or methoxychlor (an estrogenic compound), induced a decrease of spermatogenic capacity (cell number and viability) and an increase of incidence of male infertility in the adult F1 generation (Anway et al., 2005). These effects were transmitted through the male germline to nearly all males of subsequent generations (i.e., F1 to F4). The transgenerational effect seemed to be associated with the altered DNA methylation patterns in the germline (Anway et al., 2005). These results prove that the environmental memory in animals could be transmitted to the offspring through paternal transgenerational epigenetic mechanisms.

Although more and more evidence has proved that the changes in the maternal environment, especially the nutritional status during pregnancy, could cause some epigenetic modifications and then influence the gene expression during the embryonic stage, fetal development, and even after birth (Cooney et al., 2002; Lillycrop and Burdge, 2015), and theoretically, maternal and paternal contributions equally to transgenerational epigenetic information to the offspring, more research has concentrated on the paternal effect. Substantially greater influence of stud males than females on the animal breeding is one of the reasons. Less complexity in studying the transgenerational epigenetic mechanisms in a paternal model minimizes the potential influence of other pathways of nongenetic inheritance commonly in females (gestation and lactation). Focusing on males, researchers can focus on the environmental influences on the constituents of sperm and seminal fluid. This male-centered approach, when it is carried out in tightly-controlled laboratory conditions using isogenic populations, has proven highly effective in minimizing genetic (DNA) and environmental confounds. It has also yielded some of the most compelling mechanistic evidence to date that environmentally-induced epigenetic information could be packaged into the germline and transmitted to the offspring, showing the corresponding phenotypes in following generations (Ryan and Kuzawa, 2020). Moreover, when referring to the animal industry, due to the use of artificial insemination techniques, the paternal transgenerational effect can be amplified markedly in the animal industry. For instance, one breeder rooster can produce more than 100 broilers per annum (Berghof et al., 2013; Frank et al., 2003), and the offspring number can be much great in large animals (boars, rams, bulls). In addition, increasing evidence has shown that transgenerational effects could be maintained for more than one generation (Sasaki and Matsui, 2008; Sharma, 2017).

3. Paternal imprinted genes and mechanism of paternal trans-epigenetics

Imprinted genes or genome provided the first mechanical evidence for epigenetic research. In 1984, McGrath and Solter identified that the completion of mouse embryogenesis required both the maternal and paternal genomes (McGrath and Solter, 1984). Soon after, the identification of 3 imprinted genes, IGF2, IGF2R, and H19, were reported respectively (Dean et al., 1998). Since then, more imprinted genes involved in growth and development have been identified (Edwards and Ferguson-Smith, 2007), and the underlying mechanism of the imprinted genes has gradually been revealed. DNA methylation has been proved to regulate the paternal and maternal expression of IGF2 and H19 genes. In addition, H19 could also serve as a long non-coding RNA to regulate the expression of IGF2. And then the line between the imprinted gene expression and the epigenetic modification, especially DNA methylation, has been drawn (Murrell et al., 2004; Zhou et al., 2015). So far, there are around 260 imprinted genes that have been identified in mice (Tucci et al., 2019). Although the recent genome-wide characterization of imprinting suggests that there may be more than 1,000 loci with parent-of-origin allelic effects in embryonic and adult mouse brains (Gregg et al., 2010a, 2010b). Of these genes, the paternally expressed genes and their DNA methylation could influence the gene expression and development process in the offspring, which could lay the foundation for the paternally transgenerational epigenetic regulations (Liang et al., 2014; Soubry et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019). With the development of whole-genome methylome sequencing, the epigenetic reprogramming events during the embryonic period or after birth have been identified in mammals. In mammals, the development from fertilization to gametogenesis does involve several major epigenetic “reprogramming” events that reset the epigenetic state in germ cells (Table 1). The first event occurs immediately following fertilization, when the cellular differentiation states involved in programming sperm and egg cells are cleared passively (through division without re-methylation) or actively (through maternally-derived ten-eleven translocation enzyme [Tet] DNA demethylase) (Li et al., 2018c; Santos et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2012). The second event occurs during the formation of primordial germ cells (PGCs) when PGC lineage-specific epigenetic marks are cleared and replaced with sex-specific DNA methylation (DNAm) in the developing germline (Guibert et al., 2012; Seisenberger et al., 2012). These 2 epigenetic reprogramming events form the barriers of inter-and trans-generational epigenetic inheritance, subclasses of epigenetic inheritance which can be defined by the timing of the exposure in relevance to the stages of epigenetic reprogramming. Following these 2 events, spermatogonia stem cells (SSCs) undergo the third epigenomic reprogramming as they pass through the blood-testis barrier (Phillips et al., 2010). However, although the epigenetic reprogramming immediately after fertilization is extensive, it is not absolute. In mammals, DNA demethylation occurs in the whole-genome level after fertilization, but not in some loci, such as intracisternal A particle (IAP) and some other imprinting regions (Hackett et al., 2013). As the representation of oviparous, sperm DNA methylome is inherited in zebrafish early embryos (Jiang et al., 2013). These remained regions contribute to the transgenerational inheritance of epigenetic information from the father. In male animals, differential methylation in imprinted regions also persists through spermatogenesis, including the process of chromatin repackaging (Sanford et al., 1987; Trasler, 2009). Thus, the epigenetic state of imprinted genes in sperms is retained to varying degrees in individual tissues throughout their lives and provides an example of intergenerational epigenetic inheritance.

Table 1.

Reprogramming of embryonic DNA methylation in human and model animals.

Species Occurrence of global 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) reprogramming during post-fertilization period Genomic regions without global mC reprogramming during post-fertilization period Occurrence of global mC reprogramming in primordial germ cells Genomic regions without reprogramming in primordial germ cells
Homo sapiens Occurred Imprinting control regions, long interspersed nuclear element (Guo et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2014); endogenous retrovirus K transposons (ERVK) (Gkountela et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2014); Exons, 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs), promoters, splice sites, and L1 Homo sapiens-specific (L1HS) (Gkountela et al., 2015) Occurred Exons, 3ʹ UTRs, promoters, splice sites, enhancers, gene bodies, CpG islands (CGIs) and repeats, L1HS, long interspersed nuclear element, short interspersed nuclear elements (Alu), and ERVK (Gkountela et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2015; Tang et al., 2015)
Mus musculus Occurred Intracisternal A particle (IAP), imprinting control regions (Lane et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2014), Single-copy germline-expressed genes and somatically expressed genes (Borgel et al., 2010) Occurred IAPs, Promoter and non-IAP-related CGIs, ERVK (Guibert et al., 2012; Hackett et al., 2013; Seisenberger et al., 2012; Skvortsova et al., 2018)
Danio rerio Non-occurred Global paternal methylome inheritance (Jiang et al., 2013; Potok et al., 2013) Non-occurred Retention of paternal epigenetic memory (Skvortsova et al., 2019)

Different from mammals, Zebrafish and other non-mammalian (anamniote) vertebrates lack global 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) erasure (Bogdanovic et al., 2011; Hontelez et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2013; Macleod et al., 1999; Potok et al., 2013; Veenstra and Wolffe, 2001), which occurs after fertilization and persists during blastula stages in mammals (Oswald et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2012). However, zebrafish inherit the paternal DNA methylome configuration (Jiang et al., 2013; Potok et al., 2013) (Table 1). Recent studies demonstrated the absence of global DNA methylation erasure in the zebrafish germline and extensive amplification and demethylation of the oocyte-specific fem-rDNA cluster during gonad transformation, which suggested the retention of paternal epigenetic memory in the developing zebrafish germline (Iwanami et al., 2020; Skvortsova et al., 2019). These studies have proved the existence of paternal transgenerational epigenetics in non-mammalian (anamniote) vertebrates.

4. Paternal transgenerational epigenetic mechanisms relating to the environmental changes in animals

DNA methylation that occurs in the 3 reprogramming periods in mammals and the retention of paternal DNA methylome in both offspring embryos and germline of non-mammalian (anamniote) vertebrates could contribute to the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans and domestic animals (Bogdanovic et al., 2011; Hontelez et al., 2015; Iwanami et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2013; Macleod et al., 1999; Oswald et al., 2000; Potok et al., 2013; Skvortsova et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2012; Veenstra and Wolffe, 2001). Studies on the mechanisms that mediate the paternal transgenerational epigenetic regulation processes have proved that paternal environmental exposures, such as diets (Guo et al., 2020; Lane et al., 2015; Li et al., 2019; Schagdarsurengin et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2020b), environmental pollution (Bautista et al., 2020; Shukla et al., 2019) or toxicants (DeCourten et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2019), and psychosocial stresses (Blaze and Roth, 2015; Cunningham et al., 2021) could influence the spermatozoa DNA methylation and then the gene expression and behaviors in the offspring.

Except for DNA methylation, the covalent modifications of histones also mediate the parental effects (Campos et al., 2014). It has been confirmed that histone modifications at some loci are certainly transmitted between generations in mammals (Brykczynska et al., 2010; Hammoud et al., 2009; Lismer et al., 2020), fishes (Wang et al., 2016), and worms (Tabuchi et al., 2018). Thus, it is plausible that they could also underlie some paternal effects. Similar to DNA methylation, the inheritance of significantly altered paternal histone modification through sperm is the key to transgenerational inheritance. In mammalian sperm, the majority of nucleosomes are replaced with protamines to facilitate the compaction of the paternal genome (Fang et al., 2019). Nevertheless, a small percentage of nucleosomes and their associated histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) are retained, thereby forming a potential platform for the intergenerational transmission of regulatory states (Stensballe et al., 2013; Alhasan et al., 2020). Recent genome-wide studies revealed the existence of robust inheritance of trimethylation of lysine 4 on histone H3 protein subunit (H3K4me3) and trimethylation of lysine 27 on histone H3 protein subunit (H3K27me3) patterns through oocytes in mice and their role in the regulation of embryonic development (Guo et al., 2020; Vidal et al., 2013; Gray et al., 2017; Örtqvist et al., 2017). In line with these findings, overexpression of human lysine specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) in the developing mouse sperm resulted in the reduction of dimethylation of lysine 4 on histone H3 protein subunit (H3K4me2) at promoters of genes regulating developmental and metabolic processes and was accompanied by deregulation of gene expression in early F1 embryos (Örtqvist et al., 2017). Notably, these changes promoted developmental defects in the offspring and were transmitted across three generations, indicative of transgenerational epigenetic effects. Further in Caenorhabditis elegans, an epigenetic memory of germline transcription, mediated histone H3K36 trimethylation (H3K36me3) on active genes and H3K27me3 on repressed genes, is passed from one generation to the next generation and essential for germline viability (Kreher et al., 2018; Tabuchi et al., 2018). These results demonstrate an example of non-environmentally responsive epigenetic inheritance that is critical for normal development and physiology.

Moreover, the blood-testis barrier, which is tightly controlled, is also known to be permeable to a range of biologically active molecules, including numerous proteins and a rich assemblage of coding and non-coding RNAs (Ryan and Kuzawa, 2020; Schagdarsurengin et al., 2012). Both coding and noncoding RNAs circulate ubiquitously in the body as “exosomes”. As tiny lipid vesicles, the exosomes could be secreted from most cell and tissue types (Li et al., 2014). These RNA-containing exosomes are abundant in the blood, lymph tissues, cerebrospinal fluid, breast milk, and semen, and can pass through the blood-testis barrier (Hu et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2012). Herein, the non-coding RNAs, including Piwi-interacting RNA (piRNAs), microRNAs (miRNAs), transfer RNA-derived small RNAs (tsRNAs), and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), could also contribute to the paternal trans-epigenetic process (Casier et al., 2019; Ord et al., 2020; Yan, 2014). Notably, small non-coding RNAs (sncRNAs), tsRNAs, piRNAs, and miRNAs are emerging as possible mediators of environmental information transmission through sperm in mammals (Chen et al., 2016a; Dupont et al., 2019; Ord et al., 2020; Rodgers et al., 2013, 2015; Sarker et al., 2019; Yan, 2014). In several cases, a zygotic injection of total sperm miRNA (Chen et al., 2016b; Sarker et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019a), sncRNA fractions, or specific sncRNAs (Klastrup et al., 2019; Ord et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2018), and tsRNAs (Chen et al., 2016a) could partially or fully recapitulate the paternally acquired phenotypes. Further, the spermatozoal sncRNAs sequencing results have suggested the transgenerational epigenetic roles of piRNAs and lncRNAs in regulating the offspring metabolism or phenotype changes (Kimura et al., 2020; Ord et al., 2020).

Recently, the roles of gut microbiota in transgenerational “epigenetics” have been proposed. A recent study has proved that the gut microbiome is environmentally contingent but its heritability is universal (Grieneisen et al., 2021). For instance, the changes of maternal microbiota could influence the metabolic phenotype (Kimura et al., 2020), programing (Jašarević and Bale, 2019), behavior (Liu et al., 2021), and immune responses in the offspring (Nyangahu et al., 2018). Further, the epigenetic inheritance induced by microbiota alteration could also be related to the changed microbiota production abundance, such as the increased short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) (Li, 2018c; Remely et al., 2014). Notably, the inheritance of the gut microbiota from the maternal vaginal and meconium microbiota or even maternal intestinal microbiota have also been widely suggested (He et al., 2020; Kimura et al., 2020; Li, 2018c; Liu et al., 2021; Mortensen et al., 2021; Myles et al., 2013). Two studies on the transgenerational roles of paternal microbiota suggested that a paternal pre-conceptional unhealthy diet predisposed the offspring to the alterations of intestinal microbiota, liver function, and immune responses in the offspring (Laxminarayan et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2020). These researches suggested the potential inheritance effects of paternal microbiota on offspring phenotypes and microbiota, although the link between the epigenetic modifications and intestinal microbiota has not been fully established. Overall, the paternal transgenerational regulatory roles in offspring microbiota need more attention. It is worth mentioning that these epigenetic mechanisms are not working along, and may work synergistically or concomitantly to regulate the offspring's gene expression and phenotypes.

Overall, the epigenetics modification that includes DNA methylation, Histone modification, non-coding RNAs expression, as well as the gut microbiota inheritance could all contribute to the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance process that may be affected by the paternal nutrients' supplementation.

5. The use of antibiotics on the health, metabolism, and development of offspring

Aforementioned, the environmental factors could induce transgenerational epigenetic regulation in both humans and animals. Among them, antimicrobial reagents, antibiotics, in particular, have been a mainstay of modern medicine and animal feeding for the past eight decades (Laxminarayan et al., 2016; Lees et al., 2021). However, the side effects, such as the development of antibiotic resistance and drug residues in animal products have been widely reported (Cheng et al., 2014; Lees et al., 2021; Marshall and Levy, 2011). Specifically, the increasing use of antibiotics at subtherapeutic concentrations for growth promotion and disease prevention (for example, as a substitute for hygiene) is placing substantial selection pressure on the evolution of resistance to antibiotics (Iwu et al., 2020). The worldwide antimicrobial consumption in farming animals is projected to rise from 63,151 tons in 2010 to 105,596 tons in 2030, placing great selection pressure on resistant bacteria (Manikandan et al., 2020). The unregulated use of antibiotics in animal feeding could further pollute water and soils with the discharge of animal manures (Zhu et al., 2013), which could, in turn, lead to more resistant pathogens and then influence human health. Indeed, the antibiotic residues in animal products, water, and soils could further increase the risk of human antibiotic exposure.

The use of antibiotics could also influence an animal's evolution by epigenetic modification. Recently, several studies have reported that the use of antibiotics during pregnancy could increase the risk of the development of asthma in offspring childhood (Alhasan et al., 2020; Stensballe et al., 2013). Meanwhile, exposure to antibiotics during pregnancy, but not in infantile age, is associated with an increased risk of very early onset inflammatory bowel disease regardless of gastroenteritis (Örtqvist et al., 2019). The changes in the intestinal microbiota and methylation of the imprinting genes are assumed to be the reasons for the increased risk from antibiotics exposure during pregnancy (Gray et al., 2017; Vidal et al., 2013). As for the transgenerational effects on the occurrence of childhood asthma in the offspring, both paternal antibiotics and maternal antibiotics exposures showed a similar effect (Loewen et al., 2018; Örtqvist et al., 2017). Even so, the potential transgenerational epigenetic mechanisms of paternal and maternal antibiotics exposures, especially the potential interaction between inheritable microbiota alteration and epigenetic modifications, have not been investigated yet, and are worth further study.

6. Nutritional regulation of paternal transgenerational epigenetics focuses on the growth and immune function of animals

The main reason for using antibiotics in domestic animals is to inhibit pathogenic bacteria and to regulate immune functions in the gut, so the growth performance can be improved. This approach could also be replaced with applying those nutrients that have transgenerational epigenetic effects on immune function and the regulation of metabolic processes. Yet, a large number of in vitro studies have shown that some macronutrients such as fat and protein, and some micronutrients including vitamins could be involved in epigenetic regulation. These dietary nutrients could regulate immune and development processes in four epigenetic regulatory ways (Fig. 1). Firstly, some nutrients can act as methyl or acetyl donors, or act as the conferment of methylation and acetylation-related enzymes that participate in the DNA methylation and histone modification of the genes involved in the growth and immunity (Fig. 1A and B). For instance, folic acid, choline, betaine, and methionine contribute to the one-carbon metabolism that is directly involved in DNA methylation or histone regulation, which plays the roles in the regulation of gene expression of lipid and glucose metabolism, immune function, and nucleic acid metabolism (Friso et al., 2017; Mentch et al., 2015; Shyh-Chang et al., 2013) (Fig. 1A). Sinclair et al. (2007) reported that the restriction of the folate, methionine and another one-carbon metabolism related metabolites during pregnancy could reduce the methylation level of CpG island in the offspring genome, which could lead to preterm delivery and abnormal development of the offspring; Timely folate supplementation could reverse these effects by altering the genomic DNA methylation (Sinclair et al., 2007). Another study in chicken demonstrated that paternal folate supplementation could have trans-generational regulation on the lipid and glucose metabolism in broiler offspring, where the energy utilization was improved by increasing gluconeogenesis and glycolysis while reducing lipid catabolism (Wu et al., 2019a). Furthermore, the sperm DNA methylation was involved in the methionine synthase reductase (Mtrr) mutation-induced offspring abnormal development (Padmanabhan et al., 2013). In addition, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, alpha-ketoglutarate, Fe2+, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and Zn2+ all act as the cofactors to these enzymes that are involved in the one-carbon metabolism or directly serve as the coenzyme of DNA methyltransferase (DNMT), Tet, and histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes. These nutrients could also influence DNA methylation or histone methylation process and then regulate the metabolism and development process of the offspring (Anand and Marmorstein, 2007; Friso et al., 2017; Szarc vel Szic et al., 2010; Teperino et al., 2010; Young et al., 2015). Except for the methyl donors, nutrients functioning as acetyl donors can affect histone acetylation through the gene expression process (Fig. 1B). Briefly, the metabolism of glucose, lipids, and proteins are all involved in acetyl-coenzyme A (Acetyl-CoA), which serves as the main donor of acetyl moiety. Thus, these nutrients could be associated with the regulation of offspring immune function and growth through histone acetylation modification (Wellen et al., 2009).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

The potential epigenetic mechanisms reveal how paternal nutrient supplementation affected offspring gene expression. (A) Methyl donor foods or demethylation related foods that affect the DNA methylation and demethylation process. (B) Foods that affect the histone acetylation process. (C) Foods that were not directly involved in the epigenetics process. (D) Foods that may affect the gut microbiota. AGO = argonaute protein; dsRNA = double-stranded RNA; H3K4 = lysine 4 on histone H3 protein subunit; H3K9 = lysine 9 on histone H3 protein subunit; Tet = ten-eleven translocation enzyme; THF = tetrahydrogen folic acid; SAM = S-adenosylmethionine; SAH = S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine; 5-hmC = 5-hydroxymethylcytosine; 5-mC = 5-methylcytosine.

Except for these nutrients, some other metabolites that are not directly involved in the epigenetics process can also exhibit a transgenerational epigenetic regulatory effect (Fig. 1C). For instance, the paternal astragalus polysaccharide supplementation to broilers affected the offspring's immune functions, including enhancing spleen immunity and modulating the transgenerational endotoxin tolerance-like function in the jejunum, which are associated with the fight against pathogen infections (Li et al., 2018a, 2018b). Vitamin A is involved in the trans-generational effect on the offspring's immune function, such as the increase of intestinal Peyer's patches numbers (van de Pavert et al., 2014). Notably, the time window is crucial for these nutrients to implement the trans-generational influence on the offspring metabolism and immune function, for example, during the spermatogonia stem cell formation and the spermatogenesis periods (Bogdanovic et al., 2011; Hackett and Surani, 2013; Hontelez et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2013; Macleod et al., 1999; Oswald et al., 2000; Potok et al., 2013; Sanford et al., 1987; Smith et al., 2012; Trasler, 2009; Veenstra and Wolffe, 2001). Folate is involved in the DNA methylation process in broilers, and a folate supplementation could affect the spermatozoal miRNA and lncRNA expression profiles and regulate the offspring's metabolism (Wu et al., 2019a). Paternal lipid supplementation affected the sperm's tsRNA expression and induced an alteration of the glucose metabolism and increases insulin resistance in the offspring (Yan, 2014). These researches suggest that the aforementioned nutrients could play a transgenerational epigenetic regulation role without directly taking part in the epigenetic modification process.

It has been reported that the parental microbiota can modulate offspring's development, body mass, and fecundity in a polyphagous fruit fly (Nguyen et al., 2020). A recent study proved that paternal exposure to inorganic arsenic altered the intestinal microbiome which was involved in the trans-generationally regulatory effects on the offspring lipid metabolism (Gong et al., 2021). The gut microbiome heritability is universal, and the inheritance of the gut microbiome could link with the inheritable genomic and even epigenetic information (Grieneisen et al., 2021). In other words, the above epigenetic modification alterations such as inheritable small RNAs, DNA methylations, and Histone modifications information could further influence the gut microbiota colonization, which could, in turn, induce the heritable gut microbiota (Fig. 1D). Further, considering the sperms and seminal fluid contain microbiota (Baud et al., 2019; Javurek et al., 2017), it may also be possible a change in paternal microbiota that could influence the offspring microbiota or directly interact with the epigenetic modification. Polysaccharides, probiotics, and prebiotics all affect the microbiota, so their potential effects on the offspring microbiota or epigenetics modification need further studies.

To understand the paternal nutritional effects on the offspring metabolism, immune, and growth performance in domestic animals, more researches have been conducted. In a three-generation study in pigs, the F0 generation boars were fed a diet supplemented with methylating micronutrients, and the F2 generation had lower fat percentage and increased shoulder muscle percentage compared with un-supplementation control; The significant differences in hepatics DNA methylation were noted in the F0 and F2 generations (Braunschweig et al., 2012). In a chicken model, paternal folate supplementation to broilers altered spermatozoal miRNAs and lncRNAs, leading to the transgenerational effects on the lipid and glucose metabolism in the offspring (Wu et al., 2019a). A paternal dietary methionine supplementation to chicken improved the carcass traits and meat quality in their progeny (Elsharkawy et al., 2021). A paternal dietary Astragalus polysaccharide supplementation to broilers affected the sperm DNA methylome and induced transgenerational endotoxin tolerance-like effect in the jejunum mucosa and spleen in the offspring, enhancing their ability to reduce inflection caused by pathogen infection (Li et al., 2018a, 2018b). Furthermore, epigenetic modifications in the sperm of cattle were associated with environmental changes (Rahman et al., 2014; Wu and Sirard, 2020). A recent study with cattle suggested that the paternal genome and epigenome could impact the gestation length potentially through regulation of embryonic development (Fang et al., 2019). Although these studies suggest that paternal nutrition improvement may regulate offspring development and metabolism, limited studies have been conducted so far to determine the effect of nutrition on the epigenetic maturity of male gametes in cows, cattle, and lambs, and its consequence on subsequent offspring.

In summary, those nutrients could directly take roles in the epigenetic process, or chronically affect the gene expression pathways and spermatozoal epigenetic markers such as non-coding RNAs or DNA methylation, therefore, showing transgenerational effects on the immune and growth performance of the offspring. There could be a possibility to use these nutrients as substitutes for antibiotics in animal production.

7. Opportunity of reducing the antibiotics used in animal feeding when considering the paternal transgenerational nutritional epigenetic effects

The transgenerational epigenetic inheritance induced by paternal nutrition supplementation has been widely suggested in human offspring health and disease regulation (Dimofski et al., 2021). In comparison, limited study has been performed to study the paternal nutritional effects on offspring metabolism and growth. Through those above discussions in this review, we hope the paternal transgenerational nutritional epigenetic effects to reduce the use of antibiotics in animal feeding could raise more attention. Since we want to find suitable nutrients which could exhibit paternal transgenerational effects on offspring health, metabolism, and growth, I do believe 3 aspects of research are worthy of further study. Firstly, the paternal transgenerational effects of antibiotics, as well as the banning of antibiotics in domestic animals, can be studied when considering the epigenetic modification changes and gene expression changes, as well as the gut microbiota changes that related to their health, metabolism, and growth performance. Secondly, more research should be performed to study the differential paternal transgenerational epigenetic mechanism between those nutrients that could take part in the epigenetics modification process, and those nutrients could only chronically affect the gene expression pathways and spermatozoal epigenetic markers such as non-coding RNAs or DNA methylation (Wu et al., 2019a; Li et al., 2018a, 2018b). Notably, more researches focused on the potential paternal transgenerational epigenetic effects and mechanisms of these antibiotics-replacement nutrients, that could exhibit the immune regulation or growth-promoting effects, are derived more attention and needed further research. Herein, the potential antibiotics replacement nutrients which may have paternal transgenerational effects can be selected. Last but not the least, further good quality data are needed to define the real effect dose of those antibiotics' replacement nutrients in different feeding conditions so that we can finally welcome the coming of antibiotics-free animal feeding century.

8. Conclusion

A stable gene expression pattern, that includes the significantly increased metabolic function and decreased immune and anti-stress functions, has been built via genetic selection and the use of AGPs. In order to maintain the growth performance and health of domestic animals when the AGPs were banned, the paternal nutritional epigenetic effects, which includes the formation and inheritance of spermatozoal DNA methylation, histone modification, chromatin degeneration, and non-coding RNAs differential expression, may contribute to improve the immune and anti-stress functions, enhance intestinal health, maintain high digestion, absorption, and metabolic functions. Hence, further research and application of transgenerational epigenetic regulation theory in the animal production process will solve the problems left by genetic breeding from the direction of gene epigenetic modification and expression regulation. These effects might become a novel method to maintain or enhance animals' growth and health. Based on the analysis of the epigenetic mechanism of inheritance and the epigenetic regulation by nutrition, we believed that paternal nutritional manipulation on epigenetic modification of those genes relating to the metabolism and immunity could improve the growth performance and immune function in livestock and poultry. By further identifying the underlying transgenerational epigenetic mechanism, the appropriate nutritional requirements of breeder animals should be reconsidered.

Author contributions

Xinyi Li: writing-original draft, writing-review & editing, conceptualization, visualization, supervision. Mengya Wang: writing-review & editing, conceptualization, visualization. Shimin Liu: writing-review & editing, conceptualization. Xiaodong Chen: conceptualization, visualization. Yu Qiao: conceptualization. Xiaojun Yang: conceptualization, writing-review & editing, funding acquisition. Junhu Yao: conceptualization, writing-review & editing, funding acquisition. Shengru Wu: writing-original draft, conceptualization, writing-review & editing, visualization, funding acquisition, supervision.

Declaration of competing interest

We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our work, and there is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the content of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31902184) and Shaanxi Provincial Science and Technology Association Young Talents Lifting Program Project (20220203).

Footnotes

Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Association of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine.

Contributor Information

Junhu Yao, Email: yaojunhu2004@sohu.com.

Shengru Wu, Email: wushengru2013@163.com.

References

  1. Alhasan M.M., Cait A.M., Heimesaat M.M., Blaut M., Klopfleisch R., Wedel A., et al. Antibiotic use during pregnancy increases offspring asthma severity in a dose-dependent manner. Allergy. 2020;75:1979–1990. doi: 10.1111/all.14234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anand R., Marmorstein R. Structure and mechanism of lysine-specific demethylase enzymes. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:35425–35429. doi: 10.1074/jbc.R700027200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anway M.D., Cupp A.S., Uzumcu M., Skinner M.K. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of endocrine disruptors and male fertility. Science. 2005;308:1466–1469. doi: 10.1126/science.1108190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baud D., Pattaroni C., Vulliemoz N., Castella V., Marsland B.J., Stojanov M. Sperm microbiota and its impact on semen parameters. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:234. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bautista N.M., Crespel A., Crossley J., Padilla P., Burggren W. Parental transgenerational epigenetic inheritance related to dietary crude oil exposure in Danio rerio. J Exp Biol. 2020;223 doi: 10.1242/jeb.222224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bengtsson B., Wierup M. Antimicrobial resistance in Scandinavia after ban of antimicrobial growth promoters. Anim Biotechnol. 2006;17:147–156. doi: 10.1080/10495390600956920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Berghof T.V.L., Parmentier H.K., Lammers A. Transgenerational epigenetic effects on innate immunity in broilers: an underestimated field to be explored? Poult Sci. 2013;92:2904–2913. doi: 10.3382/ps.2013-03177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blaze J., Roth T.L. Evidence from clinical and animal model studies of the long-term and transgenerational impact of stress on DNA methylation. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2015;43:76–84. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2015.04.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bogdanovic O., Long S.W., van Heeringen S.J., Brinkman A.B., Gómez-Skarmeta J.L., Stunnenberg H.G., et al. Temporal uncoupling of the DNA methylome and transcriptional repression during embryogenesis. Genome Res. 2011;21:1313–1327. doi: 10.1101/gr.114843.110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Borgel J., Guibert S., Li Y., Chiba H., Schübeler D., Sasaki H., et al. Targets and dynamics of promoter DNA methylation during early mouse development. Nat Genet. 2010;42:1093–1100. doi: 10.1038/ng.708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Braunschweig M., Jagannathan V., Gutzwiller A., Bee G. Investigations on transgenerational epigenetic response down the male line in F2 pigs. PLoS One. 2012;7 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brykczynska U., Hisano M., Erkek S., Ramos L., Oakeley E.J., Roloff T.C., et al. Repressive and active histone methylation mark distinct promoters in human and mouse spermatozoa. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2010;17:679–687. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.1821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Campos E.I., Stafford J.M., Reinberg D. Epigenetic inheritance: histone bookmarks across generations. Trends Cell Biol. 2014;24:664–674. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2014.08.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Casier K., Boivin A., Carré C., Teysset L. Environmentally-induced transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: implication of PIWI interacting RNAs. Cells. 2019;8 doi: 10.3390/cells8091108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen Q., Yan M., Cao Z., Li X., Zhang Yunfang, Shi J., et al. Sperm tsRNAs contribute to intergenerational inheritance of an acquired metabolic disorder. Science. 2016;351:397–400. doi: 10.1126/science.aad7977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen Q., Yan W., Duan E. Epigenetic inheritance of acquired traits through sperm RNAs and sperm RNA modifications. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17:733–743. doi: 10.1038/nrg.2016.106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cheng G., Hao H., Xie S., Wang X., Dai M., Huang L., et al. Antibiotic alternatives: the substitution of antibiotics in animal husbandry? Front Microbiol. 2014;5:217. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cooney C.A., Dave A.A., Wolff G.L. Maternal methyl supplements in mice affect epigenetic variation and DNA methylation of offspring. J Nutr. 2002;132:2393S–2400S. doi: 10.1093/jn/132.8.2393S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cunningham A.M., Walker D.M., Nestler E.J. Paternal transgenerational epigenetic mechanisms mediating stress phenotypes of offspring. Eur J Neurosci. 2021;53:271–280. doi: 10.1111/ejn.14582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Dean W., Bowden L., Aitchison A., Klose J., Moore T., Meneses J.J., et al. Altered imprinted gene methylation and expression in completely ES cell-derived mouse fetuses: association with aberrant phenotypes. Development. 1998;125:2273–2282. doi: 10.1242/dev.125.12.2273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. DeCourten B.M., Forbes J.P., Roark H.K., Burns N.P., Major K.M., White J.W., et al. Multigenerational and transgenerational effects of environmentally relevant concentrations of endocrine disruptors in an estuarine fish model. Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54:13849–13860. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02892. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. DelCurto H., Wu G., Satterfield M.C. Nutrition and reproduction: links to epigenetics and metabolic syndrome in offspring. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2013;16:385–391. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e328361f96d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Diao S., Luo Y., Ma Y., Deng X., He Y., Gao N., et al. Genome-wide detection of selective signatures in a Duroc pig population. J Integr Agric. 2018;17:2528–2535. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(18)61984-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dias B.G., Ressler K.J. Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17:89–96. doi: 10.1038/nn.3594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dibner J.J., Richards J.D. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: history and mode of action. Poult Sci. 2005;84:634–643. doi: 10.1093/ps/84.4.634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dimofski P., Meyre D., Dreumont N., Leininger-Muller B. Consequences of paternal nutrition on offspring health and disease. Nutrients. 2021;13:2818. doi: 10.3390/nu13082818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Dupont C., Kappeler L., Saget S., Grandjean V., Lévy R. Role of miRNA in the transmission of metabolic diseases associated with paternal diet-induced obesity. Front Genet. 2019;10:337. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Edwards C.A., Ferguson-Smith A.C. Mechanisms regulating imprinted genes in clusters. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2007;19:281–289. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2007.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Elsharkawy M.S., Chen Y., Liu R., Tan X., Li W., El-Wardany I., et al. Paternal dietary methionine supplementation improves carcass traits and meat quality of chicken progeny. Animals. 2021;11 doi: 10.3390/ani11020325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fang L., Jiang J., Li B., Zhou Y., Freebern E., Vanraden P.M., et al. Genetic and epigenetic architecture of paternal origin contribute to gestation length in cattle. Commun Biol. 2019;2:100. doi: 10.1038/s42003-019-0341-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Frank E.R., Gaylene M.F., Robert A.R. Spotted Cow Press; 2003. Optimizing chick production in broiler breeders. [Google Scholar]
  32. Friso S., Udali S., De Santis D., Choi S.-W. One-carbon metabolism and epigenetics. Mol Asp Med. 2017;54:28–36. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2016.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gjedrem T., Robinson N., Rye M. The importance of selective breeding in aquaculture to meet future demands for animal protein: a review. Aquaculture. 2012;350–353:117–129. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.04.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gkountela S., Zhang K.X., Shafiq T.A., Liao W.-W., Hargan-Calvopiña J., Chen P.-Y., et al. DNA demethylation dynamics in the human prenatal germline. Cell. 2015;161:1425–1436. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gong Y., Xue Y., Li X., Zhang Z., Zhou W., Marcolongo P., et al. Inter- and transgenerational effects of paternal exposure to inorganic arsenic. Adv Sci. 2021;8:2002715. doi: 10.1002/advs.202002715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Gray L.E.K., O'Hely M., Ranganathan S., Sly P.D., Vuillermin P. The maternal diet, gut bacteria, and bacterial metabolites during pregnancy influence offspring asthma. Front Immunol. 2017;8:365. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Gregg C., Zhang J., Butler J.E., Haig D., Dulac C. Sex-specific parent-of-origin allelic expression in the mouse brain. Science. 2010;329:682–685. doi: 10.1126/science.1190831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Gregg C., Zhang J., Weissbourd B., Luo S., Schroth G.P., Haig D., et al. High-resolution analysis of parent-of-origin allelic expression in the mouse brain. Science. 2010;329:643–648. doi: 10.1126/science.1190830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Grieneisen L., Dasari M., Gould T.J., Björk J.R., Grenier J.-C., Yotova V., et al. Gut microbiome heritability is nearly universal but environmentally contingent. Science. 2021;373:181–186. doi: 10.1126/science.aba5483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gu X., Feng C., Ma L., Song C., Wang Y., Da Y., et al. Genome-wide association study of body weight in chicken F2 resource population. PLoS One. 2011;6 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Guibert S., Forné T., Weber M. Global profiling of DNA methylation erasure in mouse primordial germ cells. Genome Res. 2012;22:633–641. doi: 10.1101/gr.130997.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Guo F., Yan L., Guo H., Li L., Hu B., Zhao Y., et al. The transcriptome and DNA methylome landscapes of human primordial germ cells. Cell. 2015;161:1437–1452. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Guo H., Zhu P., Yan L., Li R., Hu B., Lian Y., et al. The DNA methylation landscape of human early embryos. Nature. 2014;511:606–610. doi: 10.1038/nature13544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Guo T., Luo F., Lin Q. You are affected by what your parents eat: diet, epigenetics, transgeneration and intergeneration. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2020;100:248–261. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.04.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Gutiérrez-Gil B., Arranz J.J., Wiener P. An interpretive review of selective sweep studies in Bos taurus cattle populations: identification of unique and shared selection signals across breeds. Front Genet. 2015;6:167. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hackett J.A., Sengupta R., Zylicz J.J., Murakami K., Lee C., Down T.A., et al. Germline DNA demethylation dynamics and imprint erasure through 5-hydroxymethylcytosine. Science. 2013;339:448–452. doi: 10.1126/science.1229277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hackett J.A., Surani M.A. DNA methylation dynamics during the mammalian life cycle. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013;368:20110328. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hammoud S.S., Nix D.A., Zhang H., Purwar J., Carrell D.T., Cairns B.R. Distinctive chromatin in human sperm packages genes for embryo development. Nature. 2009;460:473–478. doi: 10.1038/nature08162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. He Q., Kwok L.-Y., Xi X., Zhong Z., Ma T., Xu H., et al. The meconium microbiota shares more features with the amniotic fluid microbiota than the maternal fecal and vaginal microbiota. Gut Microbes. 2020;12:1794266. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2020.1794266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Hontelez S., van Kruijsbergen I., Georgiou G., van Heeringen S.J., Bogdanovic O., Lister R., et al. Embryonic transcription is controlled by maternally defined chromatin state. Nat Commun. 2015;6:10148. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Hu L., Wu C., Guo C., Li H., Xiong C. Identification of microRNAs predominately derived from testis and epididymis in human seminal plasma. Clin Biochem. 2014;47:967–972. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.11.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Huyghebaert G., Ducatelle R., Van Immerseel F. An update on alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broilers. Vet J. 2011;187:182–188. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Iwanami N., Lawir D.-F., Sikora K., O Meara C., Takeshita K., Schorpp M., et al. Transgenerational inheritance of impaired larval T cell development in zebrafish. Nat Commun. 2020;11:4505. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18289-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Iwu C.D., Korsten L., Okoh A.I. The incidence of antibiotic resistance within and beyond the agricultural ecosystem: a concern for public health. Microbiologyopen. 2020;9 doi: 10.1002/mbo3.1035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Jašarević E., Bale T.L. Prenatal and postnatal contributions of the maternal microbiome on offspring programming. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2019;55:100797. doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2019.100797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Javurek A.B., Spollen W.G., Johnson S.A., Bivens N.J., Bromert K.H., Givan S.A., et al. Consumption of a high-fat diet alters the seminal fluid and gut microbiomes in male mice. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2017;29:1602–1612. doi: 10.1071/RD16119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Jiang L., Zhang Jing, Wang J.-J., Wang L., Zhang L., Li G., et al. Sperm, but not oocyte, DNA methylome is inherited by zebrafish early embryos. Cell. 2013;153:773–784. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Joubert B.R., den Dekker H.T., Felix J.F., Bohlin J., Ligthart S., Beckett E., et al. Maternal plasma folate impacts differential DNA methylation in an epigenome-wide meta-analysis of newborns. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10577. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kimura I., Miyamoto J., Ohue-Kitano R., Watanabe K., Yamada T., Onuki M., et al. Maternal gut microbiota in pregnancy influences offspring metabolic phenotype in mice. Science. 2020;367 doi: 10.1126/science.aaw8429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Klastrup L.K., Bak S.T., Nielsen A.L. The influence of paternal diet on sncRNA-mediated epigenetic inheritance. Mol Genet Genom. 2019;294:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s00438-018-1492-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Kreher J., Takasaki T., Cockrum C., Sidoli S., Garcia B.A., Jensen O.N., et al. Distinct roles of two histone methyltransferases in transmitting H3K36me3-based epigenetic memory across generations in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 2018;210:969–982. doi: 10.1534/genetics.118.301353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Kumar M., Nagpal R., Verma V., Kumar A., Kaur N., Hemalatha R., et al. Probiotic metabolites as epigenetic targets in the prevention of colon cancer. Nutr Rev. 2013;71:23–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00542.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Lara L.J., Rostagno M.H. Impact of heat stress on poultry production. Animals. 2013;3:356–369. doi: 10.3390/ani3020356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Lane M., Zander-Fox D.L., Robker R.L., McPherson N.O. Peri-conception parental obesity, reproductive health, and transgenerational impacts. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2015;26:84–90. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2014.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Laxminarayan R., Matsoso P., Pant S., Brower C., Røttingen J.-A., Klugman K., et al. Access to effective antimicrobials: a worldwide challenge. Lancet. 2016;387:168–175. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00474-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Lees P., Pelligand L., Giraud E., Toutain P.-L. A history of antimicrobial drugs in animals: evolution and revolution. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2021;44:137–171. doi: 10.1111/jvp.12895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Li C., Fan Y., Li G., Xu X., Duan J., Li R., et al. DNA methylation reprogramming of functional elements during mammalian embryonic development. Cell Discov. 2018;4:41. doi: 10.1038/s41421-018-0039-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Li M., Zeringer E., Barta T., Schageman J., Cheng A., Vlassov A.V. Analysis of the RNA content of the exosomes derived from blood serum and urine and its potential as biomarkers. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014;369 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Li S., Zhi L., Liu Y., Shen J., Liu L., Yao J., et al. Effect of in ovo feeding of folic acid on the folate metabolism, immune function and epigenetic modification of immune effector molecules of broiler. Br J Nutr. 2016;115:411–421. doi: 10.1017/S0007114515004511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Li X., Shi X., Hou Y., Cao X., Gong L., Wang H., et al. Paternal hyperglycemia induces transgenerational inheritance of susceptibility to hepatic steatosis in rats involving altered methylation on Pparα promoter. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2019;1865:147–160. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2018.10.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Li X., Wu S., Li Xinyi, Yan T., Duan Yongle, Yang Xin, et al. Simultaneous supplementation of Bacillus subtilis and antibiotic growth promoters by stages improved intestinal function of pullets by altering gut microbiota. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2328. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Li Y. Epigenetic mechanisms link maternal diets and gut microbiome to obesity in the offspring. Front Genet. 2018;9:342. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Li Y., Lei X., Guo W., Wu S., Duan Y., Yang Xin, et al. Transgenerational endotoxin tolerance-like effect caused by paternal dietary Astragalus polysaccharides in broilers' jejunum. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;111:769–779. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.01.095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Li Y., Lei X., Yin Z., Guo W., Wu S., Yang X. Transgenerational effects of paternal dietary Astragalus polysaccharides on spleen immunity of broilers. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;115:90–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Liang F., Diao L., Liu J., Jiang N., Zhang J., Wang H., et al. Paternal ethanol exposure and behavioral abnormities in offspring: associated alterations in imprinted gene methylation. Neuropharmacology. 2014;81:126–133. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2014.01.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Lillycrop K.A., Burdge G.C. Maternal diet as a modifier of offspring epigenetics. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2015;6:88–95. doi: 10.1017/S2040174415000124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Lismer A., Siklenka K., Lafleur C., Dumeaux V., Kimmins S. Sperm histone H3 lysine 4 trimethylation is altered in a genetic mouse model of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48:11380–11393. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Liu J., Liu G., Chen Z., Zheng A., Cai H., Chang W., et al. Effects of glucose oxidase on growth performance, immune function, and intestinal barrier of ducks infected with Escherichia coli O88. Poult Sci. 2020;99:6549–6558. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Liu X., Li X., Xia B., Jin X., Zou Q., Zeng Z., et al. High-fiber diet mitigates maternal obesity-induced cognitive and social dysfunction in the offspring via gut-brain axis. Cell Metab. 2021;33:923–938.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2021.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Loewen K., Monchka B., Mahmud S.M., t Jong G., Azad M.B. Prenatal antibiotic exposure and childhood asthma: a population-based study. Eur Respir J. 2018;52 doi: 10.1183/13993003.02070-2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Lv Z., Fan H., Song B., Li G., Liu D., Guo Y. Supplementing genistein for breeder hens alters the fatty acid metabolism and growth performance of offsprings by epigenetic modification. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2019;2019 doi: 10.1155/2019/9214209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Macleod D., Clark V.H., Bird A. Absence of genome-wide changes in DNA methylation during development of the zebrafish. Nat Genet. 1999;23:139–140. doi: 10.1038/13767. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Manikandan M., Chun S., Kazibwe Z., Gopal J., Singh U.B., Oh J.-W. Phenomenal bombardment of antibiotic in poultry: contemplating the environmental repercussions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17 doi: 10.3390/ijerph17145053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Maria Cardinal K., Kipper M., Andretta I., Machado Leal Ribeiro A. Withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoters from broiler diets: performance indexes and economic impact. Poult Sci. 2019;98:6659–6667. doi: 10.3382/ps/pez536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Marshall B.M., Levy S.B. Food animals and antimicrobials: impacts on human health. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011;24:718–733. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00002-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. McGrath J., Solter D. Completion of mouse embryogenesis requires both the maternal and paternal genomes. Cell. 1984;37:179–183. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(84)90313-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Mentch S.J., Mehrmohamadi M., Huang L., Liu X., Gupta D., Mattocks D., et al. Histone methylation dynamics and gene regulation occur through the sensing of one-carbon metabolism. Cell Metab. 2015;22:861–873. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.08.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Mortensen M.S., Rasmussen M.A., Stokholm J., Brejnrod A.D., Balle C., Thorsen J., et al. Modeling transfer of vaginal microbiota from mother to infant in early life. Elife. 2021;10 doi: 10.7554/eLife.57051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Murrell A., Heeson S., Reik W. Interaction between differentially methylated regions partitions the imprinted genes Igf2 and H19 into parent-specific chromatin loops. Nat Genet. 2004;36:889–893. doi: 10.1038/ng1402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Myles I.A., Fontecilla N.M., Janelsins B.M., Vithayathil P.J., Segre J.A., Datta S.K. Parental dietary fat intake alters offspring microbiome and immunity. J Immunol. 2013;191:3200–3209. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1301057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Nguyen B., Than A., Dinh H., Morimoto J., Ponton F. Parental microbiota modulates offspring development, body mass and fecundity in a polyphagous fruit fly. Microorganisms. 2020;8 doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8091289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Nicoglou A., Merlin F. Epigenetics: a way to bridge the gap between biological fields. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2017;66:73–82. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Nyangahu D.D., Lennard K.S., Brown B.P., Darby M.G., Wendoh J.M., Havyarimana E., et al. Disruption of maternal gut microbiota during gestation alters offspring microbiota and immunity. Microbiome. 2018;6:124. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0511-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Ord J., Heath P.R., Fazeli A., Watt P.J. Paternal effects in a wild-type zebrafish implicate a role of sperm-derived small RNAs. Mol Ecol. 2020;29:2722–2735. doi: 10.1111/mec.15505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Örtqvist A.K., Lundholm C., Fang F., Fall T., Almqvist C. Parental antibiotics and childhood asthma-a population-based study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5:1451–1454.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2017.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Örtqvist A.K., Lundholm C., Halfvarson J., Ludvigsson J.F., Almqvist C. Fetal and early life antibiotics exposure and very early onset inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based study. Gut. 2019;68:218–225. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Oswald J., Engemann S., Lane N., Mayer W., Olek A., Fundele R., et al. Active demethylation of the paternal genome in the mouse zygote. Curr Biol. 2000;10:475–478. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00448-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Padmanabhan N., Jia D., Geary-Joo C., Wu X., Ferguson-Smith A.C., Fung E., et al. Mutation in folate metabolism causes epigenetic instability and transgenerational effects on development. Cell. 2013;155:81–93. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.09.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Phang J.M., Liu W., Hancock C. Bridging epigenetics and metabolism: role of non-essential amino acids. Epigenetics. 2013;8:231–236. doi: 10.4161/epi.24042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Phillips B.T., Gassei K., Orwig K.E. Spermatogonial stem cell regulation and spermatogenesis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010;365:1663–1678. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Potok M.E., Nix D.A., Parnell T.J., Cairns B.R. Reprogramming the maternal zebrafish genome after fertilization to match the paternal methylation pattern. Cell. 2013;153:759–772. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Qureshi M.A., Havenstein G.B. A comparison of the immune performance of a 1991 commercial broiler with a 1957 randombred strain when fed “typical” 1957 and 1991 broiler diets. Poult Sci. 1994;73:1805–1812. doi: 10.3382/ps.0731805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Rahman M.B., Kamal M.M., Rijsselaere T., Vandaele L., Shamsuddin M., Van Soom A. Altered chromatin condensation of heat-stressed spermatozoa perturbs the dynamics of DNA methylation reprogramming in the paternal genome after in vitro fertilisation in cattle. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2014;26:1107–1116. doi: 10.1071/RD13218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Remely M., Aumueller E., Merold C., Dworzak S., Hippe B., Zanner J., et al. Effects of short chain fatty acid producing bacteria on epigenetic regulation of FFAR3 in type 2 diabetes and obesity. Gene. 2014;537:85–92. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2013.11.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Rodgers A.B., Morgan C.P., Bronson S.L., Revello S., Bale T.L. Paternal stress exposure alters sperm microRNA content and reprograms offspring HPA stress axis regulation. J Neurosci. 2013;33:9003–9012. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0914-13.2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Rodgers A.B., Morgan C.P., Leu N.A., Bale T.L. Transgenerational epigenetic programming via sperm microRNA recapitulates effects of paternal stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:13699–13704. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1508347112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Ryan C.P., Kuzawa C.W. Germline epigenetic inheritance: challenges and opportunities for linking human paternal experience with offspring biology and health. Evol Anthropol. 2020;29:180–200. doi: 10.1002/evan.21828. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Sanford J.P., Clark H.J., Chapman V.M., Rossant J. Differences in DNA methylation during oogenesis and spermatogenesis and their persistence during early embryogenesis in the mouse. Genes Dev. 1987;1:1039–1046. doi: 10.1101/gad.1.10.1039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Santos F., Hendrich B., Reik W., Dean W. Dynamic reprogramming of DNA methylation in the early mouse embryo. Dev Biol. 2002;241:172–182. doi: 10.1006/dbio.2001.0501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Sarker G., Sun W., Rosenkranz D., Pelczar P., Opitz L., Efthymiou V., et al. Maternal overnutrition programs hedonic and metabolic phenotypes across generations through sperm tsRNAs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:10547–10556. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1820810116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Sasaki H., Matsui Y. Epigenetic events in mammalian germ-cell development: reprogramming and beyond. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:129–140. doi: 10.1038/nrg2295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Schagdarsurengin U., Paradowska A., Steger K. Analysing the sperm epigenome: roles in early embryogenesis and assisted reproduction. Nat Rev Urol. 2012;9:609–619. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2012.183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Seisenberger S., Andrews S., Krueger F., Arand J., Walter J., Santos F., et al. The dynamics of genome-wide DNA methylation reprogramming in mouse primordial germ cells. Mol Cell. 2012;48:849–862. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.11.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Sharma A. Transgenerational epigenetics: integrating soma to germline communication with gametic inheritance. Mech Ageing Dev. 2017;163:15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.mad.2016.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Shukla A., Bunkar N., Kumar R., Bhargava A., Tiwari R., Chaudhury K., et al. Air pollution associated epigenetic modifications: transgenerational inheritance and underlying molecular mechanisms. Sci Total Environ. 2019;656:760–777. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Shyh-Chang N., Locasale J.W., Lyssiotis C.A., Zheng Y., Teo R.Y., Ratanasirintrawoot S., et al. Influence of threonine metabolism on S-adenosylmethionine and histone methylation. Science. 2013;339:222–226. doi: 10.1126/science.1226603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Sinclair K.D., Allegrucci C., Singh R., Gardner D.S., Sebastian S., Bispham J., et al. DNA methylation, insulin resistance, and blood pressure in offspring determined by maternal periconceptional B vitamin and methionine status. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:19351–19356. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707258104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Skvortsova K., Iovino N., Bogdanović O. Functions and mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance in animals. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2018;19:774–790. doi: 10.1038/s41580-018-0074-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Skvortsova K., Tarbashevich K., Stehling M., Lister R., Irimia M., Raz E., et al. Retention of paternal DNA methylome in the developing zebrafish germline. Nat Commun. 2019;10:3054. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10895-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Smith Z.D., Chan M.M., Humm K.C., Karnik R., Mekhoubad S., Regev A., et al. DNA methylation dynamics of the human preimplantation embryo. Nature. 2014;511:611–615. doi: 10.1038/nature13581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Smith Z.D., Chan M.M., Mikkelsen T.S., Gu H., Gnirke A., Regev A., et al. A unique regulatory phase of DNA methylation in the early mammalian embryo. Nature. 2012;484:339–344. doi: 10.1038/nature10960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Soubry A., Guo L., Huang Z., Hoyo C., Romanus S., Price T., et al. Obesity-related DNA methylation at imprinted genes in human sperm: results from the TIEGER study. Clin Epigenetics. 2016;8:51. doi: 10.1186/s13148-016-0217-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Stensballe L.G., Simonsen J., Jensen S.M., Bønnelykke K., Bisgaard H. Use of antibiotics during pregnancy increases the risk of asthma in early childhood. J Pediatr. 2013;162:832–838.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.09.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Szarc vel Szic K., Ndlovu M.N., Haegeman G., Vanden Berghe W. Nature or nurture: let food be your epigenetic medicine in chronic inflammatory disorders. Biochem Pharmacol. 2010;80:1816–1832. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2010.07.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Tabuchi T.M., Rechtsteiner A., Jeffers T.E., Egelhofer T.A., Murphy C.T., Strome S. Caenorhabditis elegans sperm carry a histone-based epigenetic memory of both spermatogenesis and oogenesis. Nat Commun. 2018;9:4310. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06236-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Tang W.W.C., Dietmann S., Irie N., Leitch H.G., Floros V.I., Bradshaw C.R., et al. A unique gene regulatory network resets the human germline epigenome for development. Cell. 2015;161:1453–1467. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Teperino R., Schoonjans K., Auwerx J. Histone methyl transferases and demethylases; can they link metabolism and transcription? Cell Metab. 2010;12:321–327. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2010.09.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Tollefsbol T.O. Elsevier; 2014. Transgenerational epigenetics. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  129. Trasler J.M. Epigenetics in spermatogenesis. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2009;306:33–36. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2008.12.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Tucci V., Isles A.R., Kelsey G., Ferguson-Smith A.C., Tucci V., Bartolomei M.S., et al. Genomic imprinting and physiological processes in mammals. Cell. 2019;176:952–965. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.01.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Uddin M., Aiello A.E., Wildman D.E., Koenen K.C., Pawelec G., de Los Santos R., et al. Epigenetic and immune function profiles associated with posttraumatic stress disorder. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:9470–9475. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910794107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. van de Pavert S.A., Ferreira M., Domingues R.G., Ribeiro H., Molenaar R., Moreira-Santos L., et al. Maternal retinoids control type 3 innate lymphoid cells and set the offspring immunity. Nature. 2014;508:123–127. doi: 10.1038/nature13158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  133. Veenstra G.J., Wolffe A.P. Constitutive genomic methylation during embryonic development of Xenopus. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2001;1521:39–44. doi: 10.1016/s0167-4781(01)00280-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. Vidal A.C., Murphy S.K., Murtha A.P., Schildkraut J.M., Soubry A., Huang Z., et al. Associations between antibiotic exposure during pregnancy, birth weight and aberrant methylation at imprinted genes among offspring. Int J Obes. 2013;37:907–913. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2013.47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  135. Wang L., Zhang Jun, Duan J., Gao X., Zhu W., Lu X., et al. Programming and inheritance of parental DNA methylomes in mammals. Cell. 2014;157:979–991. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.04.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  136. Wang S.Y., Lau K., Lai K.-P., Zhang J.-W., Tse A.C.-K., Li J.-W., et al. Hypoxia causes transgenerational impairments in reproduction of fish. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12114. doi: 10.1038/ncomms12114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  137. Wellen K.E., Hatzivassiliou G., Sachdeva U.M., Bui T.V., Cross J.R., Thompson C.B. ATP-citrate lyase links cellular metabolism to histone acetylation. Science. 2009;324:1076–1080. doi: 10.1126/science.1164097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Wu C., Sirard M.-A. Parental effects on epigenetic programming in gametes and embryos of dairy cows. Front Genet. 2020;11:557846. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.557846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. Wu S., Chen X., Li T., Ren H., Zheng L., Yang X. Changes in the gut microbiota mediate the differential regulatory effects of two glucose oxidases produced by Aspergillus niger and Penicillium amagasakiense on the meat quality and growth performance of broilers. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2020;11:73. doi: 10.1186/s40104-020-00480-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  140. Wu S., Guo W., Li X., Liu Y., Li Y., Lei X., et al. Paternal chronic folate supplementation induced the transgenerational inheritance of acquired developmental and metabolic changes in chickens. Proc R Soc B. 2019;286:20191653. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.1653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  141. Wu S., Guo W., Yan T., Zhou J., Li Y., Zhu Y., et al. Spermatozoal mRNAs expression implicated in embryonic development were influenced by dietary folate supplementation of breeder roosters by altering spermatozoal piRNA expression profiles. Theriogenology. 2019;138:102–110. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  142. Wu S., Li T., Niu H., Zhu Y., Liu Y., Duan Y., et al. Effects of glucose oxidase on growth performance, gut function, and cecal microbiota of broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 2019;98:828–841. doi: 10.3382/ps/pey393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Wu S., Li Y., Chen S., Liang S., Ren X., Guo W., et al. Effect of dietary Astragalus Polysaccharide supplements on testicular piRNA expression profiles of breeding cocks. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017;103:957–964. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.05.122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  144. Wu S., Liu Y., Duan Y., Wang F., Guo F., Yan F., et al. Intestinal toxicity of deoxynivalenol is limited by supplementation with Lactobacillus plantarum JM113 and consequentially altered gut microbiota in broiler chickens. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2018;9:74. doi: 10.1186/s40104-018-0286-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Wu S., Wang J., Zhu L., Ren H., Yang X. A novel apidaecin Api-PR19 synergizes with the gut microbial community to maintain intestinal health and promote growth performance of broilers. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2020;11:61. doi: 10.1186/s40104-020-00462-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Yan W. Potential roles of noncoding RNAs in environmental epigenetic transgenerational inheritance. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2014;398:24–30. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2014.09.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. Yang X., Liang S., Guo F., Ren Z., Yang Xiaojun, Long F. Gut microbiota mediates the protective role of Lactobacillus plantarum in ameliorating deoxynivalenol-induced apoptosis and intestinal inflammation of broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 2020;99:2395–2406. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2019.10.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  148. Yang Y., Jiang W., Yang S., Qi F., Zhao R. Transgenerational inheritance of betaine-induced epigenetic alterations in estrogen-responsive IGF-2/IGFBP2 genes in rat hippocampus. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2020;64 doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201900823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  149. Young J.I., Züchner S., Wang G. Regulation of the epigenome by vitamin C. Annu Rev Nutr. 2015;35:545–564. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071714-034228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  150. Zhang L., Hou D., Chen X., Li D., Zhu L., Zhang Y., et al. Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA. Cell Res. 2012;22:107–126. doi: 10.1038/cr.2011.158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  151. Zhang W., Yang J., Lv Y., Li S., Qiang M. Paternal benzo[a]pyrene exposure alters the sperm DNA methylation levels of imprinting genes in F0 generation mice and their unexposed F1-2 male offspring. Chemosphere. 2019;228:586–594. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  152. Zhang Yunfang, Zhang X., Shi J., Tuorto F., Li X., Liu Yusheng, et al. Dnmt2 mediates intergenerational transmission of paternally acquired metabolic disorders through sperm small non-coding RNAs. Nat Cell Biol. 2018;20:535–540. doi: 10.1038/s41556-018-0087-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  153. Zhou J., Yang L., Zhong T., Mueller M., Men Y., Zhang N., et al. H19 lncRNA alters DNA methylation genome wide by regulating S-adenosylhomocysteine hydrolase. Nat Commun. 2015;6:10221. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  154. Zhu Y.-G., Johnson T.A., Su J.-Q., Qiao M., Guo G.-X., Stedtfeld R.D., et al. Diverse and abundant antibiotic resistance genes in Chinese swine farms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:3435–3440. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222743110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Animal Nutrition are provided here courtesy of KeAi Publishing

RESOURCES