BackgroundExposure to environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals during pregnancy reportedly causes transgenerationally inherited reproductive defects. We hypothesized that to affect the grandchild, endocrine-disrupting chemicals must alter the epigenome of the germ cells of the in utero-exposed G1 male fetus. Additionally, to affect the great-grandchild, the aberration must persist in the germ cells of the unexposed G2 grandchild.ResultsHere, we treat gestating female mice with vinclozolin, bisphenol A, or di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate during the time when global de novo DNA methylation and imprint establishment occurs in the germ cells of the G1 male fetus. We map genome-wide features in purified G1 and G2 prospermatogonia, in order to detect immediate and persistent epigenetic aberrations, respectively. We detect changes in transcription and methylation in the G1 germline immediately after endocrine-disrupting chemicals exposure, but changes do not persist into the G2 germline. Additional analysis of genomic imprints shows no persistent aberrations in DNA methylation at the differentially methylated regions of imprinted genes between the G1 and G2 prospermatogonia, or in the allele-specific transcription of imprinted genes between the G2 and G3 soma.ConclusionsOur results suggest that endocrine-disrupting chemicals exert direct epigenetic effects in exposed fetal germ cells, which are corrected by reprogramming events in the next generation. Avoiding transgenerational inheritance of environmentally-caused epigenetic aberrations may have played an evolutionary role in the development of dual waves of global epigenome reprogramming in mammals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0619-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mouse embryo fibroblasts (MEFs) are convenient sources for biochemical studies when cell number in mouse embryos is limiting. To derive the imprinting signature of MEFs and potentially detect novel imprinted genes we performed strand- and allele-specific RNA deep sequencing. We used sequenom allelotyping in embryo and adult organs to verify parental allele-specific expression. Thirty-two known ubiquitously imprinted genes displayed correct parental allele-specific transcripts in MEFs. Our analysis did not reveal any novel imprinted genes, but detected extended parental allele-specific transcripts in several known imprinted domains: maternal allele-specific transcripts downstream of Grb10 and downstream of Meg3, Rtl1as and Rian in the Dlk1-Dio3 cluster, an imprinted domain implicated in development and pluripotency. We detected paternal allele-specific transcripts downstream of Nespas, Peg3, Peg12 and Snurf/Snrpn. These imprinted transcript extensions were not unique to MEFs, but were also present in other somatic cells. The 5′ end points of the imprinted transcript extensions did not carry opposing chromatin marks or parental allele-specific DNA methylation, suggesting that their parental allele-specific transcription is under the control of the extended imprinted genes. Based on the imprinting signature of MEFs, these cells provide valid models for understanding the biochemical aspects of genomic imprinting.

In a recent paper, we described our efforts in search for evidence supporting epigenetic transgenerational inheritance caused by endocrine disrupter chemicals. One aspect of our study was to compare genome-wide DNA methylation changes in the vinclozolin-exposed fetal male germ cells (n = 3) to control samples (n = 3), their counterparts in the next, unexposed, generation (n = 3 + 3) and also in adult spermatozoa (n = 2 + 2) in both generations. We reported finding zero common hits in the intersection of these four comparisons. In our interpretation, this result did not support the notion that DNA methylation provides a mechanism for a vinclozolin-induced transgenerational male infertility phenotype. In response to criticism by Guerrero-Bosagna regarding our statistical power in the above study, here we provide power calculations to clarify the statistical power of our study and to show the validity of our conclusions. We also explain here how our data is misinterpreted in the commentary by Guerrero-Bosagna by leaving out important data points from consideration.Please see related Correspondence article: xxx (13059_2016_982) and related Research article: http://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0619-z