4.6 Review

Epigenetics of gestational diabetes mellitus and offspring health: the time for action is in early stages of life

期刊

MOLECULAR HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 19, 期 7, 页码 415-422

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gat020

关键词

developmental origins hypothesis; fetal overnutrition; fetal programming; gestational diabetes mellitus; metabolic disease

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [HA 1374/15-1, ZE 442/5-2]
  2. Wurzburg Institute of Human Genetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The epidemic increase of type 2 diabetes and obesity in developed countries cannot be explained by overnutrition, physical inactivity and/or genetic factors alone. Epidemiologic evidence suggests that an adverse intrauterine environment, in particular a shortage or excess of nutrients is associated with increased risks for many complex diseases later in life. An impressive example for the fetal origins of adult disease is gestational diabetes mellitus which usually presents in 1 to 10 of third trimester pregnancies. Intrauterine hyperglycemia is not only associated with increased perinatal morbidity and mortality, but also with increased lifelong risks of the exposed offspring for obesity, metabolic, cardiovascular and malignant diseases. Accumulating evidence suggests that fetal overnutrition (and similarly undernutrition) lead to persistent epigenetic changes in developmentally important genes, influencing neuroendocrine functions, energy homeostasis and metabolism. The concept of fetal programming has important implications for reproductive medicine. Because during early development the epigenome is much more vulnerable to environmental cues than later in life, avoiding adverse environmental factors in the periconceptional and intrauterine period may be much more important for the prevention of adult disease than any (i.e. dietetic) measures in infants and adults. A successful pregnancy should not primarily be defined by the outcome at birth but also by the health status in later life.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据