4.7 Article

Tongue Abnormalities Are Associated to a Maternal Folic Acid Deficient Diet in Mice

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu10010026

Keywords

tongue development; head development; congenital abnormalities; aglossia; microglossia; maternal folic acid-deficient diet; C57 mouse

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Sanidad [PS06/0184]
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion-Instituto de Salud Carlos III [PS09/01762]
  3. Banco Santander/Universidad Complutense de Madrid for the Complutense Research Group [920202]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is widely accepted that maternal folic acid (FA) deficiency during pregnancy is a risk factor for abnormal development. The tongue, with multiple genes working together in a coordinated cascade in time and place, has emerged as a target organ for testing the effect of FA during development. A FA-deficient (FAD) diet was administered to eight-week-old C57/BL/6J mouse females for 2-16 weeks. Pregnant dams were sacrificed at gestational day 17 (E17). The tongues and heads of 15 control and 210 experimental fetuses were studied. In the tongues, the maximum width, base width, height and area were compared with width, height and area of the head. All measurements decreased from 10% to 38% with increasing number of weeks on maternal FAD diet. Decreased head and tongue areas showed a harmonic reduction (Spearman nonparametric correlation, Rho = 0.802) with respect to weeks on a maternal FAD diet. Tongue congenital abnormalities showed a 10.9% prevalence, divided in aglossia (3.3%) and microglossia (7.6%), always accompanied by agnathia (5.6%) or micrognathia (5.2%). This is the first time that tongue alterations have been related experimentally to maternal FAD diet in mice. We propose that the tongue should be included in the list of FA-sensitive birth defect organs due to its relevance in several key food and nutrition processes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available