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.

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.

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

  • 3,497
    views
  • 728
    downloads
  • 55
    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. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Valentin Babosha, Natalia Klimenko ... Oksana Maksimenko
    Research Article

    The male-specific lethal complex (MSL), which consists of five proteins and two non-coding roX RNAs, is involved in the transcriptional enhancement of X-linked genes to compensate for the sex chromosome monosomy in Drosophila XY males compared with XX females. The MSL1 and MSL2 proteins form the heterotetrameric core of the MSL complex and are critical for the specific recruitment of the complex to the high-affinity ‘entry’ sites (HAS) on the X chromosome. In this study, we demonstrated that the N-terminal region of MSL1 is critical for stability and functions of MSL1. Amino acid deletions and substitutions in the N-terminal region of MSL1 strongly affect both the interaction with roX2 RNA and the MSL complex binding to HAS on the X chromosome. In particular, substitution of the conserved N-terminal amino-acids 3–7 in MSL1 (MSL1GS) affects male viability similar to the inactivation of genes encoding roX RNAs. In addition, MSL1GS binds to promoters such as MSL1WT but does not co-bind with MSL2 and MSL3 to X chromosomal HAS. However, overexpression of MSL2 partially restores the dosage compensation. Thus, the interaction of MSL1 with roX RNA is critical for the efficient assembly of the MSL complex on HAS of the male X chromosome.