Abstract

Paternal environmental conditions can influence phenotypes in future generations, but it is unclear whether offspring phenotypes represent specific responses to particular aspects of the paternal exposure history, or a generic response to paternal 'quality of life'. Here, we establish a paternal effect model based on nicotine exposure in mice, enabling pharmacological interrogation of the specificity of the offspring response. Paternal exposure to nicotine prior to reproduction induced a broad protective response to multiple xenobiotics in male offspring. This effect manifested as increased survival following injection of toxic levels of either nicotine or cocaine, accompanied by hepatic upregulation of xenobiotic processing genes, and enhanced drug clearance. Surprisingly, this protective effect could also be induced by a nicotinic receptor antagonist, suggesting that xenobiotic exposure, rather than nicotinic receptor signaling, is responsible for programming offspring drug resistance. Thus, paternal drug exposure induces a protective phenotype in offspring by enhancing metabolic tolerance to xenobiotics.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated
    1. Vallaster MP
    2. Kukreja S
    3. Rando OJ
    (2017) Hepatocyte RNA-Seq
    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE94059).
    1. Vallaster MP
    2. Kukreja S
    3. Rando OJ
    (2017) Hepatocyte ATAC-Seq
    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE92240).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Markus P Vallaster

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Shweta Kukreja

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Xinyang Y Bing

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jennifer Ngolab

    Brudnick Neuropsychiatric Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Rubing Zhao-Shea

    Brudnick Neuropsychiatric Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Paul D Gardner

    Brudnick Neuropsychiatric Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Andrew R Tapper

    Brudnick Neuropsychiatric Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    For correspondence
    Andrew.Tapper@umassmed.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Oliver J Rando

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    For correspondence
    Oliver.Rando@umassmed.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1516-9397

Funding

National Institute on Drug Abuse

  • Markus P Vallaster
  • Jennifer Ngolab
  • Rubing Zhao-Shea
  • Paul D Gardner
  • Andrew R Tapper
  • Oliver J Rando

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

  • Shweta Kukreja
  • Xinyang Y Bing
  • Oliver J Rando

National Institutes of Health (F32DA034414)

  • Markus P Vallaster

National Institutes of Health (R01DA033664)

  • Paul D Gardner
  • Andrew R Tapper
  • Oliver J Rando

National Institutes of Health (R01HD080224)

  • Oliver J Rando

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Detlef Weigel, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Germany

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to an approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocol (A-1788) of the University of Massachusetts.

Version history

  1. Received: December 30, 2016
  2. Accepted: January 31, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 14, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 7, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Vallaster et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,431
    views
  • 719
    downloads
  • 53
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Markus P Vallaster
  2. Shweta Kukreja
  3. Xinyang Y Bing
  4. Jennifer Ngolab
  5. Rubing Zhao-Shea
  6. Paul D Gardner
  7. Andrew R Tapper
  8. Oliver J Rando
(2017)
Paternal nicotine exposure alters hepatic xenobiotic metabolism in offspring
eLife 6:e24771.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24771

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24771

Further reading

  1. Exposing male mice to nicotine can make their sons more resistant to nicotine and other drugs.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Gregory Caleb Howard, Jing Wang ... William P Tansey
    Research Article

    The chromatin-associated protein WD Repeat Domain 5 (WDR5) is a promising target for cancer drug discovery, with most efforts blocking an arginine-binding cavity on the protein called the ‘WIN’ site that tethers WDR5 to chromatin. WIN site inhibitors (WINi) are active against multiple cancer cell types in vitro, the most notable of which are those derived from MLL-rearranged (MLLr) leukemias. Peptidomimetic WINi were originally proposed to inhibit MLLr cells via dysregulation of genes connected to hematopoietic stem cell expansion. Our discovery and interrogation of small-molecule WINi, however, revealed that they act in MLLr cell lines to suppress ribosome protein gene (RPG) transcription, induce nucleolar stress, and activate p53. Because there is no precedent for an anticancer strategy that specifically targets RPG expression, we took an integrated multi-omics approach to further interrogate the mechanism of action of WINi in human MLLr cancer cells. We show that WINi induce depletion of the stock of ribosomes, accompanied by a broad yet modest translational choke and changes in alternative mRNA splicing that inactivate the p53 antagonist MDM4. We also show that WINi are synergistic with agents including venetoclax and BET-bromodomain inhibitors. Together, these studies reinforce the concept that WINi are a novel type of ribosome-directed anticancer therapy and provide a resource to support their clinical implementation in MLLr leukemias and other malignancies.