Identification of novel nutrient-sensitive gene regulatory networks in amniotic fluid from fetuses with spina bifida using miRNA and transcription factor network analysis

Marina White, Jayden Arif-Pardy, Kristin L Connor
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.29.22273067

Abstract

Background Neural tube defects (NTDs) remain among the most common congenital anomalies. Contributing risk factors include genetics and nutrient deficiencies, however, a comprehensive assessment of nutrient-gene interactions in NTDs is lacking. We hypothesised that multiple nutrient-gene interactions would be evident in NTD-associated gene signatures.

Methods We applied a novel, nutrient-focused gene expression analysis pipeline to identify nutrient-sensitive gene regulatory networks in amniocyte gene expression data (GSE4182) from fetuses with NTDs (cases; n=3) and fetuses with no congenital anomalies (controls; n=5). Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified and screened for having nutrient cofactors. Transcription factors (TFs) with nutrient cofactors that regulated DEGs, and nutrient-sensitive miRNAs that had a previous link to NTDs, were identified and used to construct DEG regulatory networks.

Results Of the 880 DEGs in cases (vs. controls), 10% had at least one nutrient cofactor. DEG regulatory network analysis revealed that 39% and 52% of DEGs in cases were regulated by 22 nutrient-sensitive miRNAs and 10 nutrient-dependent TFs, respectively. Zinc- and B vitamin-dependent genes and gene regulatory networks (Zinc: 10 TFs targeting 50.6% of DEGs; B vitamins: 4 TFs targeting 37.7% of DEGs, 9 miRNAs targeting 17.6% of DEGs) were dysregulated in cases. Two nutrient-dependent TFs predicted to target DEGs in cases (Tumor Protein 63 and Churchill Domain Containing 1) have not been previously linked to NTDs.

Conclusions We identified multiple novel nutrient-sensitive gene regulatory networks associated with NTDs, which may relate to NTD pathogenesis, and indicate new targets to explore for NTD prevention or to optimise fetal development.

Introduction

Neural tube defects (NTDs) are among the most prevalent congenital anomalies, affecting around 19 per 10,000 livebirths globally1,2. Complex genetic and environmental contributions underly around 75% of NTDs, which have multifactorial causation3,4 and can associate with multiple comorbidities, including placental maldevelopment and function5, fetal growth restriction6 and preterm birth7. Nutritional factors have a well-recognised contribution to the etiology of isolated NTDs, namely folate and vitamin B128, and to a lesser extent, inositol9, vitamin D10, choline11 and essential trace elements12,13. Accordingly, widespread and targeted nutritional prevention strategies, such as fortification of food products with folic acid and periconceptional folic acid supplementation, have decreased NTD incidence14. However, that more than 300,000 infants remain affected by NTDs annually1 highlights the importance of improving knowledge on their causation to inform further strategies for prevention.

The role of genetics in NTD etiology is supported by associations between NTDs and chromosomal anomalies, as well as heritable susceptibility to NTDs15. Distinct genetic signatures that associate with NTDs have also been revealed through large-scale genomic analysis16-21, which can provide an integrated, global view of the mechanisms regulating normal and pathological development and aid in the identification of biomarkers for prevention and diagnosis22. Some research on genetic signatures in NTDs has been performed using amnioctyes20,21, which are a heterogeneous population of fetal stem cells in the amniotic fluid, suggested to have some capacity to differentiate into multiple fetal cell lineages23,24. Importantly, amniocyte transcriptome (gene expression) profiling has detected the expression of genes with known tissue-specific expression in numerous fetal organ systems, including the brain and placenta24, suggesting that amniocytes may be uniquely positioned to inform on genetic signatures in NTDs, as well as potentially placental-related comorbidities. While transcriptome profiling can help provide a gene-, pathway-, and network-level understanding of the genetic signatures that associate with NTDs, there is also a need to integrate knowledge on gene-environment, including nutrient, interactions to work towards a more complete understanding of NTD phenotypes, and to identify target candidates for prevention.

Adequate nutritional resources are essential for ensuring normal embryonic and fetoplacental growth and development25. Nutrients play important roles in DNA stability and repair and gene expression regulation26, and host genetics influence nutrient metabolism and bioavailability26. When considering gene-nutrient interactions in NTDs, research to-date has largely focused on the contribution of genetic variants in the folate pathway to NTD risk15,27. However, knowledge is limited on whether, and the extent to which, other nutrients and their interactions with genes can explain NTD etiology. This is a critical gap to fill, given that fetal NTDs persist even in countries with folic acid food fortification28, and in pregnant people with normal blood folate levels29.

Comorbidities associated with NTDs, including altered placental phenotype5, poor fetal growth6, and early birth7, may also be responsive to, or driven by, altered nutrient bioavailability30,31. Thus, understanding nutrient-gene interactions in NTDs is critical for improving knowledge on the pathogenesis of NTDs and their comorbidities. However, to date, no study has integrated transcriptome network analysis with field knowledge on nutrient-gene interactions in the context of NTDs.

Here, we developed and applied a novel nutrient-focused gene expression analysis pipeline to help address knowledge gaps on the role of nutrient-gene interactions in NTDs. Using data from a case-control study, we first aimed to examine the degree to which differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in fetuses with spina bifida (cases) were micronutrient dependent. We next aimed to discover novel nutrient-sensitive gene regulatory networks dysregulated in NTDs, through the identification of nutrient-responsive or dependent miRNAs and transcription factors (TFs) targeting coregulated DEGs in cases. We hypothesised that multiple nutrientgene interactions would be evident in gene signatures associated with NTDs, and that clear nutrient-sensitive miRNA and TF ‘regulons’ (a group of genes belonging to a common regulatory network) would emerge among DEGs.

Methods

Data source and pre-processing

Amniocyte gene expression data for fetuses with spina bifida (cases; n=4) and fetuses with no congenital anomalies (controls; n=5) were obtained from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; GSE4182) on June 28, 2021, and re-analysed. These microarray data were sequenced using the Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array as part of a case-control study in Budapest, Hungary, and deposited in GEO in November 200619,21. Available sample characteristics are provided in Supplementary Table S1. All three cases had a spina bifida diagnoses, and one case also had anencephaly. Gestational age at time of amniotic fluid collection ranged from 13-19 weeks for cases and 17-19 weeks and 5 days for the control group. Each control sample was pooled from two patient amniotic fluid samples from pregnancies undergoing routine amniocentesis because of a maternal age >35 years, and thus included amniotic fluid from 10 controls total.

All data pre-processing were performed in R software (version 3.6.1) using the Bioconductor (version 3.12) Affy package32. Raw microarray data (.CEL files) were downloaded from GEO and normalised using the robust multi-array average method, as recommended for Affymetrix microarrays33. Expression values were visualised using box and whisker plots and outliers were identified using sample clustering and uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP)34. Where multiple probesets corresponded to a single gene, a representative probeset was chosen for each gene, based on recommended methods35 (Supplementary Table S2). In brief, preference was given to probesets where each probe in the set contains the sequence of a single known transcript, excluding probes that hit alternate transcripts from the same gene or transcripts from different genes. Where more than one probeset remained, the probeset with the highest absolute expression level across all samples was retained for further analyses. Individual probeset identifiers were annotated with Entrez gene IDs36.

Differential gene expression analysis

DEGs between cases and controls were identified using the Limma package and empirical Bayes method in R (version 3.6.1)37. Statistical significance was determined after false discovery rate correction (Benjamini-Hochberg method38) at q value <0.05 and an absolute log fold change (FC)≥2. Functional analysis of the DEG list was performed using the Protein ANalysis THrough Evolutionary Relationships (PANTHER) classification system (version 16.0)39. While these data were first analysed to examine differential gene expression in cases compared to controls by the original authors19, standard approaches to gene expression analysis have advanced in the time since, and it was necessary for us to generate a list of DEGs to use in our subsequent analyses.

Identifying nutrient cofactors of differentially expressed genes

To determine which of the DEGs coded for proteins that were micronutrient dependent (i.e., they coded for proteins with one or more micronutrient [vitamin or mineral] cofactor), we created a DEG-nutrient interaction network. Using a previously published dataset of protein/gene-nutrient (cofactor) interactions40, we identified DEGs coding for a cofactor-interacting protein and their associated cofactors. This dataset on protein-nutrient interaction networks integrates knowledge on nutrient-protein (gene) interactions from the Metal MACiE25, Uniprot23, Expasy24 and EBI CoFactor databases. Applying a systems-approach to nutrientgene interaction analysis is key for understanding the ways in which multiple micronutrients, their metabolic products, and interacting proteins function in biological processes, and for obtaining a more complete view of nutritional contributions to health and disease40. The PANTHER classification system (version 16.0) was then used to functionally annotate DEGs that were nutrient-dependent39, and we visualised DEG-nutrient relations as a network using Cytoscape (version 3.8.2)41.

Nutrient-sensitive miRNA targetome analysis

Next, to construct nutrient-sensitive miRNA regulatory networks for DEGs in cases, we first curated a list of nutrients that have known relevance to NTDs. This included cofactors for one carbon metabolism and nucleotide synthesis (choline42, vitamins B143-45, B642,44,45, B9 [folate]44,45, and B1242,44), as well as inositol46, iron45, and vitamin D10. We next used miRWalk (version 2.0), a platform that integrates data on validated and predicted miRNA-target (gene) interactions, to identify miRNAs that are known to interact with biological processes related to these nutrients, or with activity known to be sensitive to these nutrients47. We then cross-referenced the list of miRNAs sensitive to, or associated with, these NTD-related nutrients against a curated inventory of miRNAs that have been associated with NTDs or neural tube closure in previous animal and human studies, which was also built using miRWalk and through manual searching in PubMed (search string: “neural tube*” AND “miRNA”). Targetome files with miRNA-target gene network data (miRNA targetomes), limited to experimentally validated miRNA-target interactions (miRTarBase)47,48, were then retrieved for the miRNAs that were found in both lists (i.e., miRNAs whose activity was sensitive to the NTD-related nutrients, that also had a previous link to NTDs). Our rationale to limit our focus to miRNAs with a previous NTD link when constructing nutrient-sensitive miRNA regulatory networks was driven by the high number of miRNAs associated with the nutrients of interest. For example, approximately 1000 miRNAs were identified to be sensitive to each of choline, inositol and iron. Lastly, the targetome files were used to construct nutrient-sensitive miRNA-DEG regulatory networks in Cytoscape (version 3.8.2)41.

Nutrient-sensitive transcription factor regulatory network analysis

Next, we used iRegulon (version 1.3) to identify transcription factors (TFs) predicted to co-regulate DEGs in cases49. Specifically, enriched TF binding motifs, or CHIP-seq peaks (derived from ChIP-seq data sets, also referred to as tracks), were identified in the regulatory sequences in the 20 kb (kilobase; 1000 base pairs of DNA) surrounding the transcription start site (TSS) of each DEG (from −10 kb to +10 kb of the TSS)49. Candidate TFs associated with enriched motifs and tracks were identified using default search parameters and an enrichment score threshold of 3.049. Two lists of candidate TFs were produced: One representing TFs targeting up-regulated genes in cases, and the other targeting down-regulated genes in cases. Within these lists, TFs with nutrient cofactors were identified using the same dataset of protein (gene)-nutrient interactions used above, to identify DEGs with nutrient cofactors40. Nutrient-sensitive TFs and their direct DEG targets were then exported as network files, separately for up- and down-regulated DEG lists. Nutrient-sensitive TF-DEG regulatory networks were visualised in Cytoscape (version 3.8.2)41.

Results

Data pre-processing

Expression value distribution, density, and intensity were similar across all nine samples (Supplementary Figure S1A). One case sample (GSM94601) identified as an outlier in UMAP analysis was excluded (Supplementary Figure S1A), consistent with approaches taken in previous analyses of this dataset20. The remaining eight samples were then re-clustered using UMAP, and complete separation of the case and control groups was evident (Supplementary Figure S1B). Three cases and five control samples were retained for subsequent analyses.

Amniocyte gene expression differs in cases compared to controls

In a comparison of global amniocyte gene expression, 1,155 genes (2.11% of probesets sequenced) were differentially expressed between cases and controls (q<0.05; absolute log fold change ≥2). After the removal of duplicate probesets and genes with no available Entrez ID (Supplementary Figure S2 and Table S2), 880 DEG (downregulated: n=725, upregulated: n=155) were carried forward for further analyses (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Amniocyte gene expression is different in fetuses with NTDs compared to controls.

(A) Volcano plot and (B) heat map of genes with increased (n=155) and decreased (n=725) expression in cases compared to controls (clustering method: average linkage; distant measurement method: Euclidean; clustering applies to rows and columns). Differential expression was determined at absolute fold change > 2.0 and q < .05. GE = gene expression.

After functional annotation of the DEGs using PANTHER (Supplementary Figure S3), the top identified GO molecular functions of DEGs in cases were binding (n=274 genes), catalytic activity (n=152) and regulatory functions (n=120). The top identified biological processes of DEGs in cases were cellular processes (n=431 genes), biological regulation (n=290), and metabolic processes (n=226). The top protein classes of DEGs were protein modifying enzymes (n=71 genes), gene-specific transcriptional regulators (n=63), and metabolite interconversion enzymes (n=49). The full DEG list is provided in Supplementary Table S3.

Novel nutrient-gene relationships identified in genes dysregulated in cases

We next investigated whether DEGs in case amniocytes coded for proteins that had nutrient cofactors. Of the DEGs in cases, 87 (9.9%) had at least one nutrient cofactor (downregulated: n=69, upregulated: n=18; Table 2). Cofactors included calcium (for n=14 genes), chloride (n=1), iron (n=6), heme (n=4), magnesium (n=22), manganese (n=4), S-Adenosyl methionine (n=3), vitamins B2 (n=4), B3 (n=7), B5 (n=2), B6 (n=1), and B9 (folate; n=1), vitamin C (n=1), zinc (n=19), and metal cations (n=9; Figure 2A). In nearly all DEG clusters interacting with a nutrient cofactor, the majority of DEGs were downregulated, apart from DEGs interacting with calcium (9 of 14 were upregulated) and folate (Folate receptor beta [FOLR2] was upregulated and the only folate dependent DEG; Figure 2A).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Genes with differential expression in cases compared to controls have (A) nutrient cofactors and (B) are targeted by nutrient-sensitive miRNAs.

(A) Genes (circle nodes) that had increased (pink) or decreased (blue) expression in cases compared to controls and have a known nutrient cofactor (grey diamonds) are represented in this network diagram. Data on nutrient-gene (protein) interactions was obtained from Scott-Boyer et al. 2016. (B) The largest proportion of DEG are targeted by miR-124-3p, miR-17 (both sensitive to choline, inositol, iron and vitamin D), and miR-20a (sensitive to choline, inositol and iron; miRWalk2.0). Red = upregulated, blue = downregulated, where number = number of DEG targeted by that miRNA. CoA = Coenzyme A. FAD = Flavin adenine dinucleotide. FMN = Flavin mononucleotide. logFC = log fold change. NAD = Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide. PP = Pyridoxal phosphate. SAM = S-Adenosyl methionine. Vit = vitamin.

Functional annotation of nutrient-dependent DEGs in case amniocytes revealed the top GO molecular functions to be catalytic activity (n=46 genes), binding (n=20), and transporter and molecular transducer activity (n=4 each; Supplementary Figure S4). The top identified biological processes of DEGs with a nutrient cofactor were cellular process (n=51 genes), metabolic process (n=33), and biological regulation (n=33), and the top protein classes were metabolite interconversion enzymes (n=23 genes), protein modifying enzymes (n=14), and calcium-binding proteins (n=6).

The top dysregulated genes with a nutrient cofactor were involved in lipid and purine nucleotide metabolic processes, post-translational protein modifications, and cellular homeostasis and motility-related processes (Table 1). Specifically, the three most downregulated, nutrient-dependent genes in cases were Ethanolamine-Phosphate Phospho-Lyase (ETNPPL; vitamin B6-dependent; FC=-5.14, q=0.002), involved in lipid metabolism, Baculoviral IAP Repeat Containing 3 (BIRC3; zinc-dependent; FC=-3.40, q=0.002), associated with apoptosis inhibition, inflammatory signalling pathways, and cell proliferation, and Polypeptide N-Acetylgalactosaminyltransferase 3 (GALNT3; manganese-dependent; FC=-3.31, q=4.57e-4), involved in O-linked oligosaccharide biosynthesis. The three most upregulated genes were Adenylosuccinate Synthase 1 (ADSSL1; magnesium-dependent; FC=3.23, q=0.009), which codes for an enzyme involved in purine nucleotide synthesis and metabolism, Matrix metallopeptidase 16 (MMP16; zinc- and calcium-dependent; FC=3.17, q=0.002), involved in extracellular matrix degradation in normal physiological and disease processes, and Ectonucleotide Pyrophosphatase/Phosphodiesterase 2 (ENPP2; zinc- and calcium-dependent; FC=2.83, q=0.006), associated with motility-related processes, including angiogenesis and neurite outgrowth.

View this table:
Table 1.

Genes with a nutrient cofactor that were differentially expressed in cases (vs. controls).

Overall, nutrient-dependent, downregulated genes in cases were involved in immune-related processes and nutrient metabolism and homeostasis (Table 1). This included eight genes from the metal cation-binding Metallothionein (MT) gene family (MT1E, MT1F, MT1G, MT1H, MT1HL1, MT1M, MT1X and MT2A), associated with intracellular metal homeostasis, as well as 16 zinc-interacting genes involved in immune and inflammatory processes, antioxidant activity, mitochondrial morphology, the renin-angiotensin pathway, and cell signaling (Table 2). Downregulated genes coding for proteins with B vitamin cofactors included Riboflavin Kinase (RFK), which is essential for vitamin B2 utilization, ETNPPL and Glycerol-3-Phosphate Acyltransferase 3 (AGPAT9), which are involved in lipid metabolism, and Methylsterol Monooxygenase 1 (MSMO1) and Isopentenyl-Diphosphate Delta Isomerase 1 (IDI1), which are involved in the biosynthesis of cholesterol.

Upregulated genes in cases included those involved in immune and inflammatory processes, such as Arachidonate 5-lipoxygenase (ALOX5; calcium- and iron-dependent), Colony Stimulating Factor 1 Receptor (CSF1R; magnesium-dependent), FOLR2 (folate-dependent), and NLR Family Apoptosis Inhibitory Protein (NAIP; zinc-dependent; Table 2). Calcium-dependent Neuropilin 1 (NRP1) and Ectonucleotide Pyrophosphatase/Phosphodiesterase 2 (ENPP2), and iron- and heme-dependent Prostaglandin-Endoperoxide Synthase 1 (PTGS1), were also upregulated in cases and are involved in angiogenesis (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 2.

Transcription factors with a nutrient cofactor that are predicted to target genes that are differentially expressed in cases compared to controls.

Nutrient-sensitive miRNAs target differentially regulated genes in cases

We identified 22 unique miRNAs that had a previous link to NTDs and were sensitive to the nutrients of interest identified a priori (Figure 2B). Collectively, these 22 miRNAs targeted 39% (n=344) of DEGs in cases (19% [n=155] for B vitamin-sensitive miRNAs, 30% [n=263] for choline-sensitive miRNAs, 23% [n=203] for vitamin D-sensitive miRNAs, 33% [n=289] for inositol sensitive miRNAs, and 33% [n=293] for iron-sensitive miRNAs).

The largest proportion of DEGs were targeted by MIR-124-3p (n=87 DEGs), a known suppressor of tumor proliferation and invasion, and neural inflammation50-52, with activity sensitive to choline, inositol, iron, and vitamin D. MIR-17 and MIR-20a, both belonging to the miR-17/92 cluster with known roles in cell cycle, proliferation and apoptosis, immune function, and neurodegeneration53, targeted the next largest proportions of DEGs in amniocytes of cases (n=80 DEGs for MIR-17, sensitive to choline, inositol, iron, and vitamin D; n=71 DEGs for MIR-20a; sensitive to choline, inositol and iron; Figure 2B). Two of the miRNAs (MIR142-3p and MIR-200a; both involved in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition54,55), only targeted downregulated genes in cases, while the remaining 20 miRNAs identified targeted both up- and downregulated DEGs in cases (Figure 2B).

Network analysis revealed that seven of these 22 unique miRNAs were known to be sensitive to only one nutrient of interest. This included inositol-sensitive miRNAs: MIR-23a-3p, MIR-142-3p, MIR-144, MIR-185; iron-sensitive miRNAs: MIR-200a, MIR-301; and vitamin B6-sensitive miRNA: MIR-30e-3p (Figure 3A-B). Iron, inositol, and choline-sensitive miRNAs targeted the largest proportion of DEGs in cases (Figure 3C). miRNA-targetome networks for DEG in amniocytes from cases compared to controls revealed a high degree of overlap in DEGs targeted by the 22 unique nutrient-sensitive miRNAs (Figure 3D).

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Nutrient-sensitive miRNA-DEG network analysis.

(A-B) 22 unique miRNAs known to be sensitive to the activity of nutrients of interest (identified a priori, miRWalk2.0) with a previous link to NTDs. Of the 22 miRNAs, seven were sensitive to only one nutrient of interest (inositol-sensitive: miR-23a-3p, miR-142-3p, miR-144, miR-185; iron-sensitive: miR-200a, miR-301; vitamin B6-sensitive: miR-30e-3p). (C) Iron, inositol and choline-sensitive miRNAs targeted the largest proportion of DEGs in cases, respectively. Collectively, the 22 unique miRNAs targeted 39% of DEG in cases (n=344; B vitamin-sensitive miRNAs: 19% [n=155], choline-sensitive miRNAs: 30% [n=263], vitamin D-sensitive miRNAs: 23% [n=203], inositol-sensitive miRNAs: 33% [n=289], iron-sensitive miRNAs: 33% [n=293]). (D) Nutrient-sensitive miRNA-targetome networks for DEG in cases compared to controls. Diamonds = nutrient-sensitive miRNAs. Circles (nodes) = DEG targets, where lighter shades = downregulated in cases, darker shades = upregulated in cases. DEG = differentially expressed genes. GE = gene expression. FC = fold change. Vit = vitamin.

Nutrient-dependent transcription factors target co-regulated differentially expressed genes

iRegulon analysis revealed 125 and 106 unique TFs predicted to target up- and down-regulated genes, respectively, in case amniocytes (Supplementary Table S4). Of these, 16 TFs had nutrient cofactors and target down-(n=5) and up-regulated (n=10) DEGs, or both (n=1; Table 2). Nutrient cofactors of these TFs included calcium (for n=1 TF), magnesium (n=1), metal cations (n=1), vitamins A (n=1), B2 (n=1), B3 (n=2), B5 (n=1), D (n=1) and zinc (n=10; Figure 4A). Collectively, these 16 TFs are predicted to regulate the expression of 52% (n=460) of DEGs (Figure 4B).

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Nutrient-sensitive transcription factor regulatory networks for DEGs in cases compared to controls.

(A) 16 transcription factors with nutrient-cofactors that are predicted to regulate DNA motifs or tracks of DEG were identified. Nutrient cofactors of these TFs included calcium (for n=1 TF), magnesium (n=1), metal cations (n=1), vitamins A (n=1), B2 (n=1), B3 (n=2), B5 (n=1), D (n=1) and zinc (n=10). (B) Collectively, these 16 TFs are predicted to regulate the expression of 52% (n=460) of DEGs. Red = upregulated in cases, blue = downregulated in cases, grey = total proportion of DEG targeted by a nutrient-sensitive TF. Nutrient-sensitive TF-gene networks were visualised for TFs predicted to target (C) downregulated genes (n=5 unique TFs, left-bottom panel) and (D) upregulated genes (n=10 unique TFs, right-bottom panel) separately. One TF (E1A Binding Protein P300; EP300) is predicated to target both up- and down-regulated genes in cases. Diamonds = nutrient-sensitive TFs. Circles (nodes) = DEG targets, where colours on the left of the colour palette = downregulated in cases, right of the colour palette = upregulated in cases. DEG = differentially expressed genes. GE = gene expression. FC = fold change. TF = transcription factor.

E1A Binding Protein P300 (EP300), a transcription factor with known roles in cell growth, differentiation, and NTDs, was the top nutrient-dependent regulator of DEG transcription identified and the only TF identified that putatively targeted both up-and down-regulated genes. EP300 had 311 expected targets (upregulated: n=9, downregulated: n=302; 35.3% of total DEGs; Table 2), and zinc and vitamin B5 cofactors. The zinc-requiring P53 family proteins (TP53, TP63, and TP73), involved in cell proliferation and apoptosis, were the next-largest putative regulators of DEGs, potentially targeting 252 downregulated genes in cases (28.6% of total DEGs).

Of TFs identified as potential regulators of upregulated genes, the metal-cation reliant TROVE domain family, member 2 (TROVE2) gene, a known regulator of immune and inflammatory processes, was associated with the largest proportion (n=35 [4.0%] upregulated genes in cases). Quiescin Sulfhydryl Oxidase 1 (QSOX1; vitamin B2-dependent) which targeted the next-largest group of DEGs (n=25 upregulated genes), was also downregulated in cases (FC=-2.16, q=0.002; Table 2). One of the P53 family proteins (TP63), as well as an additional zinc-dependent TF identified (Churchill Domain Containing 1 [CHURC1]), have not been previously linked to NTDs.

Nutrient-sensitive TF-gene networks were visualised for enriched TFs predicted to target downregulated and upregulated genes (Figure 4C-D). All TFs predicted to target downregulated genes had zinc as a cofactor, and one (EP300) was also vitamin B5-dependent (Figure 4C). TFs targeting upregulated genes were dependent on calcium, magnesium, metal cations, vitamins A, B3, B5, D, and zinc (Figure 4D). In the TF-gene network figures, it is visually evident that the regulons of downregulated genes targeted by nutrient-sensitive TFs were much larger than the upregulated regulons, but were fewer in number (Figure 4C-D).

Discussion

Using a novel nutrient-focused gene expression analysis pipeline, we identified multiple nutrient-sensitive genes and gene regulatory networks that were dysregulated in amniocytes from fetuses with NTDs. We found that over half of the dysregulated genes were predicted to be co-regulated by TFs and miRNAs that are sensitive to, or dependent on, nutrients with known roles in NTD etiology, namely zinc, B vitamins, and B vitamin-like nutrients (choline and inositol). These findings suggest that nutrient-sensitive genes and gene regulatory networks may explain an important portion of genetic signatures associated with NTDs. Profiling nutrient-transcriptome interaction networks in the context of NTDs may help to illustrate, in part, the gene-environment interactions that contribute to NTD pathogenesis, improving understanding of causal pathways.

Several zinc-dependent genes and gene regulatory networks were dysregulated in case amniocytes compared to controls. Zinc is a key regulator of gene expression, and is essential for the rapid DNA synthesis, cell growth, and proliferation that accompany embryonic development, including neural tube closure56,57. Low maternal zinc status may be associated with increased NTD risk58, and zinc imbalance in animal studies leads to NTDs, possibly through modulation of p53 activity13. Here, three zinc-dependent P53 family proteins were identified as transcription factors predicted to target over a quarter of DEGs in case amniocytes, and eight Metallothionein genes, which are essential for maintaining zinc homeostasis and controlling zinc-dependent cellular signaling59, were downregulated in cases. Altogether, our findings support a role for zinc-associated gene dysregulation in NTD genetic phenotypes, in alignment with previous animal studies, and illustrate novel zinc-dependent gene networks in an NTD-affected a human cohort.

One zinc- and vitamin B5-dependent TF, EP300, was predicted to target over one third of DEGs in case amniocytes. EP300 has been studied in mouse models of NTDs and is predicted to activate pathways that promote fusion of the neural tube60,61. In humans, rare deleterious variants in the EP300 gene have recently been associated with NTDs62, and here, EP300 was the dominant, nutrient-sensitive focal point for DEG regulation in cases. Two additional nutrient-dependent TFs identified here further support a role for both zinc and B vitamin-interacting gene dysregulation in cases: Sirtuin 6 (SIRT6; vitamin B3- and zinc-dependent) and CHURC1 (zinc-dependent). SIRT6 suppression by high glucose levels is a proposed to mechanism linking maternal diabetes to increased risk of fetal NTDs63, however, CHURC1 has not previously been associated with NTDs. In zebrafish and xenopus, churc1 is known to play a role in embryogenesis and neuroectodermal development64,65. In humans, CHURC1 has been investigated in relation to autism, where a microdeletion in a gene region containing the genes for both CHURC1 and methylenetetrahydrofolate dehydrogenase 1 (MTHFD1), a folate metabolism enzyme with known links to NTD etiology15,27, associated with increased autism risk66. While research on zinc-B vitamins interactions is limited, there is some evidence that zinc may have a role in niacin (vitamin B3) metabolism through interaction with pyridoxine (vitamin B6)67,68. Overall, the dominance of dysregulated zinc- and B vitamin-dependent gene networks in our results suggest that both zinc- and B vitamin-gene interactions in NTDs should be a focus of further study.

To date, folates (vitamin B9), and more recently, folate one-carbon metabolism (OCM) cofactors (namely vitamins B12 and B6), have been the central nutrient targets for NTD prevention. In agreement with the established role of folates and OCM cofactors in NTDs, we identified nine miRNAs with known associations to NTDs that were also B vitamin-sensitive, eight being sensitive to folate, and were predicted to regulate the expression of nearly one fifth of DEGs in case amniocytes. Further, the three miRNAs that targeted the largest proportion of DEGs in cases (MIR-124-3p, MIR-17, and MIR-20a) were each sensitive to both choline and inositol, water soluble B vitamin-like molecules with known roles in NTD etiology9,11, and four TFs with B vitamin cofactors (EP300 and SIRT6, as well as C-terminal-binding protein 2 [CTBP2] and QSOX1) predicted to target DEGs in cases were identified. Both QSOX1 and CTBP2 have inferred associations with NTDs via their interactions with valproic acid and folic acid69, and the role of the CTBP2 gene in the Wnt and Notch signaling pathways70. However, no studies have provided direct evidence linking QSOX1 or CTBP2 to NTD pathogenesis or phenotype in humans, and here, QSOX1 expression was also downregulated in case amniocytes compared to controls. Taken together, our findings advance beyond a folic acid (vitamin B9)-centric view of the role of B vitamins in NTDs and highlight B vitamin-sensitive or dependent gene candidates for further study in NTDs.

Additionally, we found that six miRNAs with known associations to NTDs were vitamin D-sensitive, and collectively, were predicted to target nearly one quarter of DEGs in case amniocytes. Vitamin D receptor (VDR) was also identified as a transcription factor targeting DEGs, and Methylsterol monooxygenase 1 (MSMO1), associated with vitamin D analog metabolism, was downregulated in cases. Vitamin D plays important anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory roles71, and low maternal vitamin D levels have been associated with fetal NTDs10. In mice, vitamin D3 supplementation prevents lipopolysaccharide-induced NTDs via increased folate transport from the maternal circulation to the embryo72. Thus, our findings support vitamin D as a nutrient of interest for further research on nutrient-gene interactions in NTD pathogenesis.

The small size of this cohort is a key limitation to our study that may limit the validity of our findings, however, the rarity of NTDs and the challenges that accompany amniotic fluid collection make these data a valuable resource for examining the genomic signatures associated with isolated NTDs. Data on cohort characteristics were also limited, and it is plausible that there are unexplored variables that could help explain the differences observed here, including maternal clinical or demographic characteristics, as well as dietary intakes; namely of nutrients that have known associations with NTDs. Fortification of wheat products with folic acid had also not been introduced at the time of data collection, and while the original authors did report that all study participants were taking a multivitamin supplement throughout pregnancy21, it remains difficult to speculate about the nutrient status, including folate, of the study’s participants. Lastly, our scope for miRNA-targetome analysis was narrowed to focus on only miRNAs with a previous link to NTDs. This may have prevented the identification of novel miRNAs associated with NTDs, and future research with higher computational resources should consider an expanded focus.

Building on the work of authors who previously analysed these data to understand gene- and gene pathway dysregulation in isolated NTDs20,21, our nutrient-focused network analysis approach integrates knowledge on nutrient-gene interactions with gene expression network analysis to examine the functional networks underlying NTD phenotypes. Network medicine is an essential tool for identifying the functional networks that drive health and disease states22, and we are the first to apply this approach in the context of nutrient-gene interactions in NTDs. The nutrient-focused gene expression analysis pipeline applied here may also be of use for research in other areas at the intersection of nutrition and health and disease, beyond NTDs. Integrated nutrient-transcriptome network analysis may provide insights into nutrient-sensitive mechanisms that underly disease processes, which may aid in the identification of novel nutrition targets for the prevention of disease and promotion of optimal health and developmental outcomes.

Data Availability

The microarray data used in this analysis were obtained from GEO (GSE4182). The code used for microarray pre-processing has been deposited in a GitHub repository (https://github.com/marina-white/ntd_af_nutrient-gene_study.git).

Data availability statement

The microarray data used in this analysis were obtained from GEO (GSE4182). The code used for microarray pre-processing has been deposited in a GitHub repository (https://github.com/marina-white/ntd_af_nutrient-gene_study.git).

Funding

This research is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR PJT-175161). MW is supported by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship and JAP is supported by a Dean’s Summer Research Internship, Faculty of Science, Carleton University.

Acknowledgments

We thank the authors who originally sequenced these data for making them publicly available in GEO.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Christianson, A., Howson, C.P. & Modell, B. Global report on birth defects: The hidden toll of dying and disabled children. (ed. Foundation, M.o.D.B.D.) (2006).
  2. 2.↵
    Blencowe, H., Kancherla, V., Moorthie, S., Darlison, M.W. & Modell, B. Estimates of global and regional prevalence of neural tube defects for 2015: a systematic analysis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1414, 31–46 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Copp, A.J., Stanier, P. & Greene, N.D.E. Genetic Basis of Neural Tube Defects. in Textbook of Pediatric Neurosurgery 1–28 (Srpinger, Cham., 2017).
  4. 4.↵
    Greene, N.D. & Copp, A.J. Neural tube defects. Annu Rev Neurosci 37, 221–242 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    White, M., Grynspan, D., Van Mieghem, T. & Connor, K.L. Isolated fetal neural tube defects associate with increased risk of placental pathology: Evidence from the Collaborative Perinatal Project. Placenta 114, 56–67 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    Furness, D., et al. Folate, Vitamin B12, Vitamin B6 and homocysteine: impact on pregnancy outcome. Maternal & Child Nutrition 9, 155–166 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Siega-Riz, A.M., Savitz, D.A., Zeisel, S.H., Thorp, J.M. & Herring, A. Second trimester folate status and preterm birth. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 191, 1851–1857 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Finnell, R.H., et al. Gene Environment Interactions in the Etiology of Neural Tube Defects. Front Genet 12, 659612 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    D’Souza, S.W., Copp, A.J., Greene, N.D.E. & Glazier, J.D. Maternal Inositol Status and Neural Tube Defects: A Role for the Human Yolk Sac in Embryonic Inositol Delivery? Adv Nutr 12, 212–222 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Nasri, K., et al. Maternal 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and the occurrence of neural tube defects in Tunisia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 134, 131–134 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Shaw, G.M., Carmichael, S.L., Yang, W., Selvin, S. & Schaffer, D.M. Periconceptional dietary intake of choline and betaine and neural tube defects in offspring. Am J Epidemiol 160, 102–109 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Tian, T., et al. Single and mixed effects of metallic elements in maternal serum during pregnancy on risk for fetal neural tube defects: A Bayesian kernel regression approach. Environ Pollut 285, 117203 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Kakebeen, A.D. & Niswander, L. Micronutrient imbalance and common phenotypes in neural tube defects. Genesis 59, e23455 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    De Wals, P., et al. Reduction in Neural-Tube Defects after Folic Acid Fortification in Canada. New England Journal of Medicine 357, 135–142 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    Bassuk, A.G. & Kibar, Z. Genetic basis of neural tube defects. Semin Pediatr Neurol 16, 101–110 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Krupp, D.R., et al. Transcriptome profiling of genes involved in neural tube closure during human embryonic development using long serial analysis of gene expression (long-SAGE). Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 94, 683–692 (2012).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.
    Price, E.M., et al. Profiling placental and fetal DNA methylation in human neural tube defects. Epigenetics & chromatin 9, 6–6 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.
    Shang, Z., et al. Single-cell RNA-seq reveals dynamic transcriptome profiling in human early neural differentiation. Gigascience 7(2018).
  19. 19.↵
    Barrett, T., et al. NCBI GEO: archive for functional genomics data sets--update. Nucleic Acids Res 41, D991–995 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    Li, Z., Feng, J. & Yuan, Z. Key Modules and Hub Genes Identified by Coexpression Network Analysis for Revealing Novel Biomarkers for Spina Bifida. Front Genet 11, 583316 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Nagy, G.R., et al. Use of routinely collected amniotic fluid for whole-genome expression analysis of polygenic disorders. Clin Chem 52, 2013–2020 (2006).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Sonawane, A.R., Weiss, S.T., Glass, K. & Sharma, A. Network Medicine in the Age of Biomedical Big Data. Front Genet 10, 294 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Maguire, C.T., et al. Genome-wide analysis reveals the unique stem cell identity of human amniocytes. PLoS One 8, e53372 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Kang, J.H., et al. Comparative Transcriptome Analysis of Cell-Free Fetal RNA from Amniotic Fluid and RNA from Amniocytes in Uncomplicated Pregnancies. PLoS One 10, e0132955 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Godfrey, K.M. & Barker, D.J. Maternal nutrition in relation to fetal and placental growth. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 61, 15–22 (1995).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    Paoloni-Giacobino, A., Grimble, R. & Pichard, C. Genetics and nutrition. Clin Nutr 22, 429–435 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    Zhang, T., et al. Genetic variants in the folate pathway and the risk of neural tube defects: a meta-analysis of the published literature. PLoS One 8, e59570 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Bentley, T.G., Willett, W.C., Weinstein, M.C. & Kuntz, K.M. Population-level changes in folate intake by age, gender, and race/ethnicity after folic acid fortification. Am J Public Health 96, 2040–2047 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    Ray, J.G., et al. Vitamin B12 and the risk of neural tube defects in a folic-acid-fortified population. Epidemiology 18, 362–366 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    Belkacemi, L., Nelson, D.M., Desai, M. & Ross, M.G. Maternal undernutrition influences placental-fetal development. Biol Reprod 83, 325–331 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    Bloomfield, F.H. How is maternal nutrition related to preterm birth? Annu Rev Nutr 31, 235–261 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    Gautier, L., Cope, L., Bolstad, B.M. & Irizarry, R.A. affy--analysis of Affymetrix GeneChip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics 20, 307–315 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 33.↵
    Irizarry, R.A., et al. Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics 4, 249–264 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    McInnes, L., Healy, J., Saul, N. & Lukas, G. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection. Journal of Open Source Software 3, 861 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Stalteri, M.A. & Harrison, A.P. Interpretation of multiple probe sets mapping to the same gene in Affymetrix GeneChips. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 13 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Maglott, D., Ostell, J., Pruitt, K.D. & Tatusova, T. Entrez Gene: gene-centered information at NCBI. Nucleic Acids Res 39, D52–57 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    Ritchie, M.E., et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res 43, e47 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 57, 289–300 (1995).
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  39. 39.↵
    Mi, H., Muruganujan, A., Casagrande, J.T. & Thomas, P.D. Large-scale gene function analysis with the PANTHER classification system. Nat Protoc 8, 1551–1566 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Scott-Boyer, M.P., et al. A network analysis of cofactor-protein interactions for analyzing associations between human nutrition and diseases. Sci Rep 6, 19633 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Shannon, P., et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res 13, 2498–2504 (2003).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    Petersen, J.M., et al. One-Carbon Cofactor Intake and Risk of Neural Tube Defects Among Women Who Meet Folic Acid Recommendations: A Multicenter Case-Control Study. Am J Epidemiol 188, 1136–1143 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    Kerns, J.C. & Gutierrez, J.L. Thiamin. Adv Nutr 8, 395–397 (2017).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    Lyon, P., Strippoli, V., Fang, B. & Cimmino, L. B Vitamins and One-Carbon Metabolism: Implications in Human Health and Disease. Nutrients 12(2020).
  45. 45.↵
    Chandler, A.L., et al. Neural tube defects and maternal intake of micronutrients related to one-carbon metabolism or antioxidant activity. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 94, 864–874 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    D’Souza, S.W., Copp, A.J., Greene, N.D.E. & Glazier, J.D. Maternal Inositol Status and Neural Tube Defects: A Role for White et al. medRχiv | May 28, 2022 | the Human Yolk Sac in Embryonic Inositol Delivery? Adv Nutr (2020).
  47. 47.↵
    Sticht, C., De La Torre, C., Parveen, A. & Gretz, N. miRWalk: An online resource for prediction of microRNA binding sites. PLoS One 13, e0206239 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Huang, H.Y., et al. miRTarBase 2020: updates to the experimentally validated microRNA-target interaction database. Nucleic Acids Res 48, D148–D154 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Janky, R., et al. iRegulon: from a gene list to a gene regulatory network using large motif and track collections. PLoS Comput Biol 10, e1003731 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    Huang, S., et al. Increased miR-124-3p in microglial exosomes following traumatic brain injury inhibits neuronal inflammation and contributes to neurite outgrowth. FASEB J 32, 512–528 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.
    Wang, Y., et al. miR-124-3p functions as a tumor suppressor in breast cancer by targeting CBL. BMC Cancer 16, 826 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    Majid, A., et al. miR-124-3p Suppresses the Invasiveness and Metastasis of Hepatocarcinoma Cells. Front Mol Biosci 7, 223 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    Mogilyansky, E. & Rigoutsos, I. The miR-17/92 cluster: a comprehensive update on its genomics, genetics, functions and increasingly important and numerous roles in health and disease. Cell Death Differ 20, 1603–1614 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. 54.↵
    Eades, G., et al. miR-200a regulates SIRT1 expression and epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT)-like transformation in mammary epithelial cells. J Biol Chem 286, 25992–26002 (2011).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    Xie, N., et al. MicroRNA-142-3p suppresses cell proliferation, invasion and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition via RAC1-ERK1/2 signaling in colorectal cancer. Mol Med Rep 24(2021).
  56. 56.↵
    Cousins, R.J. A role of zinc in the regulation of gene expression. Proc Nutr Soc 57, 307–311 (1998).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    MacDonald, R.S. The role of zinc in growth and cell proliferation. J Nutr 130, 1500S–1508S (2000).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    Dey, A.C., et al. Maternal and neonatal serum zinc level and its relationship with neural tube defects. J Health Popul Nutr 28, 343–350 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    Krężel, A. & Maret, W. The Functions of Metamorphic Metallothioneins in Zinc and Copper Metabolism. Int J Mol Sci 18(2017).
  60. 60.↵
    Bhattacherjee, V., et al. CBP/p300 and associated transcriptional co-activators exhibit distinct expression patterns during murine craniofacial and neural tube development. Int J Dev Biol 53, 1097–1104 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    Lee, S. & Gleeson, J.G. Closing in on Mechanisms of Open Neural Tube Defects. Trends Neurosci 43, 519–532 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    Au, K.S., et al. Human myelomeningocele risk and ultra-rare deleterious variants in genes associated with cilium, WNT-signaling, ECM, cytoskeleton and cell migration. Sci Rep 11, 3639 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    Yu, J., Wu, Y. & Yang, P. High glucose-induced oxidative stress represses sirtuin deacetylase expression and increases histone acetylation leading to neural tube defects. J Neurochem 137, 371–383 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    Taibi, A., et al. Zebrafish churchill regulates developmental gene expression and cell migration. Dev Dyn 242, 614–621 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    Snir, M., Ofir, R., Elias, S. & Frank, D. Xenopus laevis POU91 protein, an Oct3/4 homologue, regulates competence transitions from mesoderm to neural cell fates. EMBO J 25, 3664–3674 (2006).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    Griswold, A.J., et al. A de novo 1.5 Mb microdeletion on chromosome 14q23.2-23.3 in a patient with autism and spherocytosis. Autism Res 4, 221–227 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. 67.↵
    Vannucchi, H. & Moreno, F.S. Interaction of niacin and zinc metabolism in patients with alcoholic pellagra. Am J Clin Nutr 50, 364–369 (1989).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. 68.↵
    Vannucchi, H., Kutnink, M.D., Sauberlich, M. & Howerde, E. Interaction among niacin, vitamin B6 and zinc in rats receiving ethanol. Int J Vitam Nutr Res 56, 355–362 (1986).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    Davis, A.P., et al. Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD): update 2021. Nucleic Acids Res 49, D1138–D1143 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.↵
    Van Hateren, N., Shenton, T. & Borycki, A.G. Expression of avian C-terminal binding proteins (Ctbp1 and Ctbp2) during embryonic development. Dev Dyn 235, 490–495 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    Aranow, C. Vitamin D and the immune system. J Investig Med 59, 881–886 (2011).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. 72.↵
    Chen, Y.-H., et al. Supplementation With Vitamin D3 During Pregnancy Protects Against Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Neural Tube Defects Through Improving Placental Folate Transportation. Toxicological Sciences 145, 90–97 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted April 02, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Identification of novel nutrient-sensitive gene regulatory networks in amniotic fluid from fetuses with spina bifida using miRNA and transcription factor network analysis
Marina White, Jayden Arif-Pardy, Kristin L Connor
medRxiv 2022.03.29.22273067; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.29.22273067
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area