Cited by 163Epigenetics and DNA MethylationHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityEffects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals

DNA methylation changes in whole blood is associated with exposure to the environmental contaminants, mercury, lead, cadmium and bisphenol A, in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF

Open access
Hanna, Courtney W., Bloom, Michael S., Robinson, Wendy P., Kim, Dongsul, Parsons, Patrick J., vom Saal, Frederick S., Taylor, Julia A., Steuerwald, Amy J. +1 more·2012·Human Reproduction

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Changes in DNA methylation may play an important role in the deleterious reproductive effects reported in association with exposure to environmental pollutants. In this pilot study, we identify candidate methylation changes associated with exposure to pollutants in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). METHODS: Blood and urine were collected from women on the day of oocyte retrieval. Whole blood was analyzed for mercury and lead, and urine for cadmium using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Unconjugated bisphenol A (BPA) was analyzed in serum using high-performance liquid chromatography with Coularray detection. Participants were dichotomized as higher or lower exposure groups by median concentrations. Using the Illumina GoldenGate Methylation Cancer Panel I, DNA methylation in whole blood from 43 women was assessed at 1505 CpG sites for association with exposure levels of each pollutant. Candidate CpG sites were identified using a Diff Score >|13| (P< 0.05) and an absolute difference >10% which were confirmed using bisulfite pyrosequencing. RESULTS: Methylation of the GSTM1/5 promoter was increased for women with higher mercury exposure (P= 0.04); however, no correlation was observed (r= 0.17, P= 0.27). Reduced methylation was detected in the COL1A2 promoter in women with higher exposure to lead (P= 0.004), and an inverse correlation was observed (r = - 0.45, P= 0.03). Lower methylation of a promoter CpG site at the TSP50 gene was detected in women with higher BPA exposure (P= 0.005), and again an inverse correlation was identified (r = - 0.51, P= 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Altered DNA methylation at various CpG sites was associated with exposure to mercury, lead or BPA, providing candidates to be investigated using a larger study sample, as the results may reflect an independently associated predictor (e.g. socioeconomic status, diet, genetic variants, altered blood cell composition). Further studies accommodating variations in these factors will be needed to confirm these associations and identify their underlying causes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/des038

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hanna, C. W., Bloom, M. S., Robinson, W. P., Kim, D., Parsons, P. J., vom Saal, F. S., Taylor, J. A., Steuerwald, A. J., & Fujimoto, V. Y.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
  • New York State Department of Health (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Bloom, Michael S.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2012-02-29
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
1401-1410
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2166071110
Cited by
163
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (64220_1)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES 018764, RC2ES018764)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Heavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
Keywords
DNA methylation, environmental pollutants, mercury exposure, lead exposure, cadmium exposure, bisphenol A, in vitro fertilization, ovulation induction, women's reproductive health, CpG sites
MeSH terms
Bisphenol A Compounds, Adult, Benzhydryl Compounds, Body Burden, Cadmium, Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid, DNA, Environmental Pollutants, Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Humans, Lead, Mercury, Ovulation Induction, Phenols, Pilot Projects, Maternal Exposure, DNA Methylation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review