Entity

Time filter

Source Type


Laks K.,Tallinn University of Technology | Laks K.,Competence Center on Health Technologies | Kirsipuu T.,Tallinn University of Technology | Kirsipuu T.,Competence Center on Health Technologies | And 5 more authors.
Protein Journal | Year: 2016

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The presentation of Fig. 2 was incorrect. The corrected Fig. 2 is given below. © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016


Pervjakova N.,University of Tartu | Pervjakova N.,University of Helsinki | Kasela S.,University of Tartu | Morris A.P.,University of Tartu | And 9 more authors.
Epigenomics | Year: 2016

Genomic imprinting is an epigenetic feature characterized by parent-specific monoallelic gene expression. The aim of this study was to compare the DNA methylation status of imprinted genes and imprinting control regions (ICRs), harboring differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in a comprehensive panel of 18 somatic tissues. The germline DMRs analyzed were divided into ubiquitously imprinted and placenta-specific DMRs, which show identical and different methylation imprints in adult somatic and placental tissues, respectively. We showed that imprinted genes and ICR DMRs maintain methylation patterns characterized by intermediate methylation levels in somatic tissues, which are pronounced in a specific region of the promoter area, located 200-1500 bp from the transcription start site. This intermediate methylation is concordant with gene expression from a single unmethylated allele and silencing of a reciprocal parental allele through DNA methylation. The only exceptions were seen for ICR DMRs of placenta-specific imprinted genes, which showed low levels of methylation, suggesting that these genes escape parent-specific epigenetic regulation in somatic tissues. © 2016 Natalia Pervjakova.


Destouni A.,Catholic University of Leuven | Esteki M.Z.,Catholic University of Leuven | Catteeuw M.,Ghent University | Tsuiko O.,Catholic University of Leuven | And 10 more authors.
Genome Research | Year: 2016

Dramatic genome dynamics, such as chromosome instability, contribute to the remarkable genomic heterogeneity among the blastomeres comprising a single embryo during human preimplantation development. This heterogeneity, when compatible with life, manifests as constitutional mosaicism, chimerism, and mixoploidy in live-born individuals. Chimerism and mixoploidy are defined by the presence of cell lineages with different parental genomes or different ploidy states in a single individual, respectively. Our knowledge of their mechanistic origin results from indirect observations, often when the cell lineages have been subject to rigorous selective pressure during development. Here, we applied haplarithmisis to infer the haplotypes and the copy number of parental genomes in 116 single blastomeres comprising entire preimplantation bovine embryos (n = 23) following in vitro fertilization. We not only demonstrate that chromosome instability is conserved between bovine and human cleavage embryos, but we also discovered that zygotes can spontaneously segregate entire parental genomes into different cell lineages during the first post-zygotic cleavage division. Parental genome segregation was not exclusively triggered by abnormal fertilizations leading to triploid zygotes, but also normally fertilized zygotes can spontaneously segregate entire parental genomes into different cell lineages during cleavage of the zygote. We coin the term "heterogoneic division" to indicate the events leading to noncanonical zygotic cytokinesis, segregating the parental genomes into distinct cell lineages. Persistence of those cell lines during development is a likely cause of chimerism and mixoploidy in mammals. © 2016 Destouni et al.


Zilina O.,University of Tartu | Koltsina M.,University of Tartu | Raid R.,University of Tartu | Kurg A.,University of Tartu | And 3 more authors.
BMC Genomics | Year: 2015

Background: Somatic mosaicism denotes the presence of genetically distinct populations of somatic cells in one individual who has developed from a single fertilised oocyte. Mosaicism may result from a mutation that occurs during postzygotic development and is propagated to only a subset of the adult cells. Our aim was to investigate both somatic mosaicism for copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity (cn-LOH) events and DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in fully differentiated tissues. Results: We studied panels of tissue samples (11-12 tissues per individual) from four autopsy subjects using high-resolution Illumina HumanOmniExpress-12 BeadChips to reveal the presence of possible intra-individual tissue-specific cn-LOH and CNV patterns. We detected five mosaic cn-LOH regions >5 Mb in some tissue samples in three out of four individuals. We also detected three CNVs that affected only a portion of the tissues studied in one out of four individuals. These three somatic CNVs range from 123 to 796 kb and are also found in the general population. An attempt was made to explain the succession of genomic events that led to the observed somatic genetic mosaicism under the assumption that the specific mosaic patterns of CNV and cn-LOH changes reflect their formation during the postzygotic embryonic development of germinal layers and organ systems. Conclusions: Our results give further support to the idea that somatic mosaicism for CNVs, and also cn-LOHs, is a common phenomenon in phenotypically normal humans. Thus, the examination of only a single tissue might not provide enough information to diagnose potentially deleterious CNVs within an individual. During routine CNV and cn-LOH analysis, DNA derived from a buccal swab can be used in addition to blood DNA to get information about the CNV/cn-LOH content in tissues of both mesodermal and ectodermal origin. Currently, the real frequency and possible phenotypic consequences of both CNVs and cn-LOHs that display somatic mosaicism remain largely unknown. To answer these questions, future studies should involve larger cohorts of individuals and a range of tissues. © 2015 Žilina et al.


Haller-Kikkatalo K.,University of Tartu | Haller-Kikkatalo K.,Competence Center on Health Technologies | Uibo R.,University of Tartu | Uibo R.,Competence Center on Health Technologies
Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology | Year: 2016

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as carbohydrate intolerance that begins or is first recognized during pregnancy. The prevalence of GDM is highly variable, depending on the population studied, and reflects the underlying pattern of diabetes in the population. GDM manifests by the second half of pregnancy and disappears following delivery in most cases, but is associated with the risk of subsequent diabetes development. Normal pregnancy induces carbohydrate intolerance to favor the availability of nutrients for the fetus, which is compensated by increased insulin secretion from the maternal pancreas. Pregnancy shares similarities with adiposity in metabolism to save energy, and both conditions favor the development of insulin resistance (IR) and low-grade inflammation. A highly complicated network of modified regulatory mechanisms may primarily affect carbohydrate metabolism by promoting autoimmune reactions to pancreatic β cells and affecting insulin function. As a result, diabetes development during pregnancy is facilitated. Depending on a pregnant woman’s genetic susceptibility to diabetes, autoimmune mechanisms or IR are fundamental to the development autoimmune or non-autoimmune GDM, respectively. Pregnancy may facilitate the identification of women at risk of developing diabetes later in life; autoimmune and non-autoimmune GDM may be early markers of the risk of future type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The most convenient and efficient way to discriminate GDM types is to assess pancreatic β-cell autoantibodies along with diagnosing diabetes in pregnancy. © 2014, Springer Science+Business Media New York.

Discover hidden collaborations