[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations

Nature Neuroscience volume 17, pages 89–96 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

This article has been updated

Abstract

Using olfactory molecular specificity, we examined the inheritance of parental traumatic exposure, a phenomenon that has been frequently observed, but not understood. We subjected F0 mice to odor fear conditioning before conception and found that subsequently conceived F1 and F2 generations had an increased behavioral sensitivity to the F0-conditioned odor, but not to other odors. When an odor (acetophenone) that activates a known odorant receptor (Olfr151) was used to condition F0 mice, the behavioral sensitivity of the F1 and F2 generations to acetophenone was complemented by an enhanced neuroanatomical representation of the Olfr151 pathway. Bisulfite sequencing of sperm DNA from conditioned F0 males and F1 naive offspring revealed CpG hypomethylation in the Olfr151 gene. In addition, in vitro fertilization, F2 inheritance and cross-fostering revealed that these transgenerational effects are inherited via parental gametes. Our findings provide a framework for addressing how environmental information may be inherited transgenerationally at behavioral, neuroanatomical and epigenetic levels.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Behavioral sensitivity to odor is specific to the paternally conditioned odor.
Figure 2: Sensitivity of F1 males toward F0-conditioned odor.
Figure 3: Neuroanatomical characteristics of the olfactory system in F1 males after paternal F0 olfactory fear conditioning.
Figure 4: Behavioral sensitivity and neuroanatomical changes are inherited in F2 and IVF-derived generations.
Figure 5: Behavioral sensitivity and neuroanatomical changes persist after cross-fostering.
Figure 6: Methylation of odorant receptor genes in sperm DNA from conditioned F0 and odor naive F1 males.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 09 December 2013

    In the version of this article initially published online, the base grant to the Yerkes National Primate Research Center was omitted from the Acknowledgments. The error has been corrected for the print, PDF and HTML versions of this article.

References

  1. Jirtle, R.L. & Skinner, M.K. Environmental epigenomics and disease susceptibility. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 253–262 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Anway, M.D. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of endocrine disruptors and male fertility. Science 308, 1466–1469 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Weaver, I.C.G. Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior and pharmacological intervention. Nature versus nurture: let's call the whole thing off. Epigenetics 2, 22–28 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Franklin, T.B. et al. Epigenetic transmission of the impact of early stress across generations. Biol. Psychiatry 68, 408–415 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dietz, D.M. et al. Paternal transmission of stress-induced pathologies. Biol. Psychiatry 70, 408–414 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Morgan, H.D., Sutherland, H.G., Martin, D.I. & Whitelaw, E. Epigenetic inheritance at the agouti locus in the mouse. Nat. Genet. 23, 314–318 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carone, B.R. et al. Paternally induced transgenerational environmental reprogramming of metabolic gene expression in mammals. Cell 143, 1084–1096 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ng, S.-F. et al. Chronic high-fat diet in fathers programs β-cell dysfunction in female rat offspring. Nature 467, 963–966 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Crews, D. et al. Transgenerational epigenetic imprints on mate preference. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5942–5946 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaati, G., Bygren, L.O. & Edvinsson, S. Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents' and grandparents' slow growth period. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 10, 682–688 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rakyan, V.K. et al. Transgenerational inheritance of epigenetic states at the murine Axin(Fu) allele occurs after maternal and paternal transmission. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 2538–2543 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Morgan, C.P. & Bale, T.L. Early prenatal stress epigenetically programs dysmasculinization in second-generation offspring via the paternal lineage. J. Neurosci. 31, 11748–11755 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Harris, A. & Seckl, J. Glucocorticoids, prenatal stress and the programming of disease. Horm. Behav. 59, 279–289 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meaney, M.J., Szyf, M. & Seckl, J.R. Epigenetic mechanisms of perinatal programming of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal function and health. Trends Mol. Med. 13, 269–277 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. 33, 9003–9012 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Buck, L. & Axel, R. A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: a molecular basis for odor recognition. Cell 65, 175–187 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ressler, K.J., Sullivan, S.L. & Buck, L.B. A zonal organization of odorant receptor gene expression in the olfactory epithelium. Cell 73, 597–609 (1993).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mombaerts, P. Molecular biology of odorant receptors in vertebrates. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 22, 487–509 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jones, S.V., Choi, D.C., Davis, M. & Ressler, K.J. Learning-dependent structural plasticity in the adult olfactory pathway. J. Neurosci. 28, 13106–13111 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bozza, T., Feinstein, P., Zheng, C. & Mombaerts, P. Odorant receptor expression defines functional units in the mouse olfactory system. J. Neurosci. 22, 3033–3043 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ressler, K.J., Sullivan, S.L. & Buck, L.B. Information coding in the olfactory system: evidence for a stereotyped and highly organized epitope map in the olfactory bulb. Cell 79, 1245–1255 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vassalli, A., Rothman, A., Feinstein, P., Zapotocky, M. & Mombaerts, P. Minigenes impart odorant receptor-specific axon guidance in the olfactory bulb. Neuron 35, 681–696 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Davis, M., Falls, W.A., Campeau, S. & Kim, M. Fear-potentiated startle: a neural and pharmacological analysis. Behav. Brain Res. 58, 175–198 (1993).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hebb, A.L.O., Zacharko, R.M., Gauthier, M. & Drolet, G. Exposure of mice to a predator odor increases acoustic startle but does not disrupt the rewarding properties of VTA intracranial self-stimulation. Brain Res. 982, 195–210 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Weaver, I.C.G., Meaney, M.J. & Szyf, M. Maternal care effects on the hippocampal transcriptome and anxiety-mediated behaviors in the offspring that are reversible in adulthood. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 3480–3485 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Weinstock, M. Intrauterine factors as determinants of depressive disorder. Isr. J. Psychiatry Relat. Sci. 47, 36–45 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Champagne, F.A. & Meaney, M.J. Stress during gestation alters postpartum maternal care and the development of the offspring in a rodent model. Biol. Psychiatry 59, 1227–1235 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lomvardas, S. et al. Interchromosomal interactions and olfactory receptor choice. Cell 126, 403–413 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Magklara, A. et al. An epigenetic signature for monoallelic olfactory receptor expression. Cell 145, 555–570 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Cedar, H. & Bergman, Y. Linking DNA methylation and histone modification: patterns and paradigms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 295–304 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. van der Heijden, G.W. et al. Sperm-derived histones contribute to zygotic chromatin in humans. BMC Dev. Biol. 8, 34 (2008).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Brykczynska, U. et al. Repressive and active histone methylation mark distinct promoters in human and mouse spermatozoa. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 679–687 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rassoulzadegan, M. et al. RNA-mediated non-mendelian inheritance of an epigenetic change in the mouse. Nature 441, 469–474 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Stickrod, G., Kimble, D.P. & Smotherman, W.P. In utero taste/odor aversion conditioning in the rat. Physiol. Behav. 28, 5–7 (1982).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hales, C.N. & Barker, D.J. The thrifty phenotype hypothesis. Br. Med. Bull. 60, 5–20 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Storm, J.J. & Lima, S.L. Mothers forewarn offspring about predators: a transgenerational maternal effect on behavior. Am. Nat. 175, 382–390 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Todrank, J., Heth, G. & Restrepo, D. Effects of in utero odorant exposure on neuroanatomical development of the olfactory bulb and odour preferences. Proc. Biol. Sci. 278, 1949–1955 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Skinner, M.K. What is an epigenetic transgenerational phenotype? F3 or F2. Reprod. Toxicol. 25, 2–6 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Guerrero-Bosagna, C., Settles, M., Lucker, B. & Skinner, M.K. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of vinclozolin on promoter regions of the sperm epigenome. PLoS ONE 5, e13100 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Vassoler, F.M., White, S.L., Schmidt, H.D., Sadri-Vakili, G. & Pierce, R.C. Epigenetic inheritance of a cocaine-resistance phenotype. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 42–47 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Roth, T.L., Lubin, F.D., Funk, A.J. & Sweatt, J.D. Lasting epigenetic influence of early-life adversity on the BDNF Gene. Biol. Psychiatry 65, 760–769 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Greer, E.L. et al. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of longevity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 479, 365–371 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Rechavi, O., Minevich, G. & Hobert, O. Transgenerational inheritance of an acquired small RNA-based antiviral response in C. elegans. Cell 147, 1248–1256 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Cavalli, G. & Paro, R. Epigenetic inheritance of active chromatin after removal of the main transactivator. Science 286, 955–958 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Maruniak, J.A., Silver, W.L. & Moulton, D.G. Olfactory receptors respond to blood-borne odorants. Brain Res. 265, 312–316 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vanderhaeghen, P., Schurmans, S., Vassart, G. & Parmentier, M. Specific repertoire of olfactory receptor genes in the male germ cells of several mammalian species. Genomics 39, 239–246 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Oakberg, E.F. Duration of spermatogenesis in the mouse and timing of stages of the cycle of the seminiferous epithelium. Am. J. Anat. 99, 507–516 (1956).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fleischmann, A. et al. Mice with a “monoclonal nose”: perturbations in an olfactory map impair odor discrimination. Neuron 60, 1068–1081 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Glinka, M.E. et al. Olfactory deficits cause anxiety-like behaviors in mice. J. Neurosci. 32, 6718–6725 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Jovanovic, T. et al. Physiological markers of anxiety are increased in children of abused mothers. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 52, 844–852 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Ostermeier, G.C., Wiles, M.V., Farley, J.S. & Taft, R.A. Conserving, distributing and managing genetically modified mouse lines by sperm cryopreservation. PLoS ONE 3, e2792 (2008).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Umlauf, D., Goto, Y. & Feil, R. Site-specific analysis of histone methylation and acetylation. Methods Mol. Biol. 287, 99–120 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Krueger, F. & Andrews, S.R. Bismark: a flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications. Bioinformatics 27, 1571–1572 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Li, H. et al. 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup. The sequence alignment/map (SAM) format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 52, 2078–2079 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the animal care staff in the Yerkes Neuroscience Vivarium for assistance with animal husbandry. A. Magklara, S. Lomvardas, B. Carone, O. Rando and A.F.H.M. Peters provided invaluable input on the ChIP experiments. We would like to thank H. Zhang and the staff of the Emory Transgenic Mouse/Gene Targeting Core Facility for assistance with IVF studies. Bisulfite conversion of sperm DNA and sequencing was carried out by Active Motif and we especially thank P. Labhart for addressing our data interpretation queries. Finally, we are grateful to S. Banerjee, R. Andero-Gali, D. Choi, J. Goodman and F. Morrison for help with ensuring double-blindness of data acquisition and analysis, and members of the Ressler laboratory, S. Gourley and M. Davis for helpful feedback on the manuscript. Funding for this study was provided by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund to K.J.R., and a US National Institutes of Health NCRR base grant (P51RR00-0165) to Yerkes National Primate Research Center.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Brian G Dias & Kerry J Ressler

  2. Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Brian G Dias & Kerry J Ressler

  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA

    Kerry J Ressler

Authors
  1. Brian G Dias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerry J Ressler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.G.D. conceived of the project, designed and performed experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. K.J.R. obtained funds, designed experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper and supervised the project.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Brian G Dias or Kerry J Ressler.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Experimental design to investigate the effect of cue-specific trauma to an F0 generation on subsequently conceived generations.

Novel experimental paradigm that uses olfactory fear conditioning to examine the structural and functional changes in the nervous systems of adult mice (F1 and F2) conceived after the F0 generation was trained to associate specific odorant presentations with mild foot-shocks. Briefly, F0 adult male mice were trained to associate Acetophenone or Propanol presentation with mild-footshocks (5 odor-shock pairings/session, 3 sessions, 1 session/day). Ten days after this conditioning, these F0 males were mated with naïve females. Ten days after the mating was setup, the F0 males were separated from the females. F1 offspring born were tested at 2-months of age. For studies of the F2 generation, F1 males that had no previous exposure to either Acetophenone or Propanol were mated with naïve females for 10 days, and resulting F2 offspring were used for analyses. Our experimental design minimized the possibility of a “social transmission” mode of information transfer. Specifically, the F0 male has absolutely no contact with the F1 offspring, is placed with the female 10 days after the last conditioning day, should not have any trace of the conditioned odor on his skin or hair to transfer to the mother, and is separated from the female after a 10 day period to minimize any in utero exposure of the pups to the conditioned male.

Supplementary Figure 2 No differences found in anxiety measures in adult male offspring that had been conceived after the F0 generation males had been subjected to olfactory fear conditioning with acetophenone or propanol.

C57Bl/6J (a) and M71-LacZ (b) adult male offspring (F1-Home, F1-Ace, F1-Prop) spend the same amount of time in the closed and open arms of an elevated plus maze, and make the same number of entries into the open arms. (C57Bl/6J: F1-Home-C57 n = 9 vs F1-Ace-C57 n = 8) (F1-Home-M71 n =11 vs F1-Ace-M71 n =12 vs F1-Prop-M71 n =11) (Two-way ANOVA: p > 0.05 in both experiments).

Source data

Supplementary Figure 3 No differences in auditory fear conditioning in adult male offspring that had been conceived after the F0 generation males had been subjected to olfactory fear conditioning with acetophenone or propanol.

No significant differences were found between F1-Home-C57, and F1-Ace-C57 in the acquisition (a), consolidation (b), and extinction retention (c) of the memory of an aversive auditory cue after they were trained to associate 6kHz tone presentations with mild-footshocks. (C57Bl/6J: F1-Home-C57 n = 9 vs F1-Ace-C57 n = 9) p > 0.05 in all experiments.

Source data

Supplementary Figure 4 Cross-fostering study to determine transmission versus inheritance of observed effects.

Sexually naïve C57Bl/6J female mice were conditioned with Acetophenone or left in their Home Cage; they were then mated with C57Bl/6J males for 10 days. Offspring were then divided into the following groups: Offspring of Home Cage Mothers (F1-Home-C57), Offspring of Acetophenone Conditioned Mothers (F1-Ace-C57), O-MHC cross fostered starting at P1 by Mothers Conditioned to Acetophenone (F1-Home-C57fostered), O-MCA cross fostered by Home Cage Mothers (F1-Ace-C57fostered).

Supplementary Figure 5 Bisulfite sequencing around the Olfr151 and Olfr6 genes was conducted to query the methylation status of CpG di-nucleotides.

Coding sequences (red text) of Olfr6 and Olfr151 in reverse complement with primers used to generate amplicons highlighted in blue. CpG di-nucleotides shown in Fig. 6 are numbered. The CpG di-nucleotides not numbered in Olfr151 could not be queried due to technical issues.

Supplementary Figure 6 Methylation status of CpG di-nucleotides in the Olfr151 (M71) gene in MOE DNA of the odor naive F1 and F2 generations.

(a) Bisulfite sequencing data to query the methylation status of CpG di-nucleotides in the Olfr151 (M71) gene in MOE of the F1 generation male reveals no differences in methylation between groups (p > 0.05) (n = 4/group). (b) Bisulfite sequencing data to query the methylation status of CpG di-nucleotides in the Olfr151 (M71) gene in MOE of the F1 generation reveals no differences in methylation at individual CpG sites between groups. (c) Bisulfite sequencing data to query the methylation status of CpG di-nucleotides in the Olfr151 gene in MOE of the F2 generation reveals no differences in methylation status between F2-Ace and F2-Prop (n = 4/group) across all CpG di-nucleotides queried (p > 0.05). (d) Bisulfite sequencing data to query the methylation status of CpG di-nucleotides in the Olfr151 gene in MOE of the F2 generation reveals no differences in methylation status between F2-Ace and F2-Prop across specific CpG di-nucleotides queried (Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons). All graphs represent Mean±SEM.

Source data

Supplementary Figure 7 Validation of Sperm N-ChIP protocol, and histone modifications around the M71 locus in the sperm of F0 males (fathers) that had been subjected to olfactory fear conditioning.

(a) Sperm ChIP was validated by performing qPCR for Pold3 and Bmp4. As has been shown previously, Pold3 is associated with more of the “activating” mark (Acetyl H3), and less of the “repressive” mark (H3 trimethyl-K27), while BMP4 is associated with more of the repressive than the activating mark. N-ChIP on sperm of F0 males (fathers) conditioned either to Acetophenone (F0-Ace-C57) or Propanol (F0-Prop-C57) reveals no significant differences in the activating (Acetyl H3) (b) or repressive (H3 trimethyl-K27) (c) histone modifications immunoprecipitated in our experiment. (n = 5 epidydymis per sample, n = 3 samples/group) (p > 0.05 for both marks). All graphs represent Mean±SEM.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–7 (PDF 30685 kb)

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dias, B., Ressler, K. Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations. Nat Neurosci 17, 89–96 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3594

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3594

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing