Epigenetics pollution
π Health and biotech
Epigenetics: how our experiences leave their imprint on our DNA

Could pollution leave its trace on our DNA?

with Agnès Vernet, Science journalist
On January 27th, 2022 |
3min reading time
Xavier Coumoul
Xavier Coumoul
Lecturer in Metabolic biochemistry, cell signalling and toxicology at Université de Paris
Key takeaways
  • Alterations in the structure of DNA – known as “epigenetic” alterations – can be induced by pollutants such as the fungicide vinclozolin.
  • Researchers were able to show that these changes were passed on to their descendants and could be detected in rodents up to four generations later.
  • These results are not directly applicable to humans, however, because the level of exposure to pollutants in humans is low and it is impossible to carry out the same tests in humans.
  • One of the main challenges of this research is to evolve regulatory science to include reliable academic data.

Epi­gen­et­ics shows that our envir­on­ment can influ­ence gene expres­sion. Is this also the case for expos­ure to tox­ic molecules? This appar­ently simple ques­tion is far from simple and is for­cing reg­u­lat­ory author­it­ies to rethink their meth­ods while pub­lic con­cern grows. 

We have sus­pec­ted for about ten years now that pol­lu­tion affects the epi­gen­ome. It all began with the obser­va­tion of changes in epi­gen­et­ic marks in gest­at­ing rodents after they had been exposed to a fun­gi­cide, vin­clo­zolin. More sur­pris­ingly, these alter­a­tions could be observed in their off­spring even four gen­er­a­tions later, i.e. in anim­als that had nev­er been exposed to the pol­lut­ant12. This work has been the sub­ject of much debate. How import­ant are these res­ults since they involved expos­ure to very high doses? More than 15 years after pub­lic­a­tion, these res­ults remain val­id in mice, but extra­pol­at­ing them to humans is tricky.

An experimental challenge

It is eth­ic­ally unac­cept­able to repro­duce a con­trolled expos­ure exper­i­ment on humans. What is more, in real-life we are exposed mainly to low or medi­um doses of dif­fer­ent bio­lo­gic­ally act­ive products over a life­time. The ques­tion of the trans­gen­er­a­tion­al impact of expos­ure to pol­lut­ants as observed in rodents there­fore remains dif­fi­cult to answer in human spe­cies for the moment. Epi­demi­olo­gists are think­ing about how to set up a cohort to look for such an effect. In the­ory, this is pos­sible, but to meas­ure a stat­ist­ic­ally sig­ni­fic­ant sig­nal, we would have to study a large num­ber of people who were exposed to a spe­cif­ic pol­lut­ant dur­ing the peri­nat­al peri­od and whose des­cend­ants were not exposed to this pollutant…

Can we identi­fy the molecu­lar mech­an­ics involved? Here again, the research is com­plex. There are sev­er­al hypo­theses. The first sug­gests that tox­ic sub­stances modi­fy meta­bol­ism. This would have an impact on how epi­gen­et­ic marks appear, for example by modi­fy­ing the avail­ab­il­ity of methyl group donors, lead­ing to a dis­rup­tion of the fre­quency of DNA methyl­a­tions. Anoth­er hypo­thes­is focuses on the role of mito­chon­dria and thus of res­pir­a­tion. This intra­cel­lu­lar organ­elle3, whose main role is to pro­duce energy using oxy­gen from the air, is at the cross­roads between sev­er­al meta­bol­ic path­ways and could thus influ­ence DNA methyl­a­tion mech­an­isms. These two mech­an­isms could affect how cells func­tion when exposed to pollutants.

Anoth­er much-dis­cussed top­ic is how the memory of expos­ure to pol­lut­ants is car­ried over from one gen­er­a­tion to the next, or the trans­gen­er­a­tion­al inher­it­ance of epi­gen­et­ic changes caused by pol­lu­tion. In the past, we were cer­tain that epi­gen­et­ic marks were deleted when gam­etes were formed. The oocyte that gives rise to the embryo was there­fore described as lack­ing the epi­gen­et­ic his­tory of both par­ents. But is this erad­ic­a­tion com­plete? Some research­ers assume that cer­tain marks can be passed on to the next gen­er­a­tion. This hypo­thes­is, which would go bey­ond foet­al expos­ure to under­stand the trans­gen­er­a­tion­al trans­mis­sion of cer­tain epi­gen­et­ic alter­a­tions, is cur­rently under study.

A challenge for society

This type of research, which is essen­tial if we are to doc­u­ment the phe­nomen­on using real-life data, is extremely dif­fi­cult to per­form on humans and has not yet fully demon­strated the exist­ence of a caus­al link. We know about some mech­an­isms, such as those in which com­pon­ents of cigar­ette smoke alter cell sig­nalling even dur­ing pass­ive smoking. But a one-off demon­stra­tion is not enough to answer the glob­al ques­tion. It is there­fore cru­cial to under­take these large cohort stud­ies, although they are risky in terms of pro­du­cing sig­ni­fic­ant results.

There is also the ques­tion of mak­ing the link between expos­ure to pol­lut­ants and how epi­gen­et­ics is altered. This ques­tion is the sub­ject of work that I am car­ry­ing out with my col­leagues in the Envir­on­ment­al Tox­icity, Thera­peut­ic Tar­gets, Cel­lu­lar Sig­nalling and Bio­mark­ers labor­at­ory (T3S, Inserm/University of Par­is). We are try­ing to estab­lish the link between the “expo­some”, which is the com­bin­a­tion of all pol­lut­ants and stressors (phys­ic­al, thermal, psychoso­cial, etc.), to which an indi­vidu­al is sub­jec­ted and the poten­tial alter­a­tions of his or her epi­gen­ome [the sum of all epi­gen­et­ic modi­fic­a­tions on the gen­ome]. All this work obvi­ously raises ques­tions about the epi­gen­et­ic safety of man­u­fac­tured products. While these must be con­sidered safe by the reg­u­lat­ory author­it­ies if they are to be sold on the European mar­ket, from the point of view of epi­gen­et­ics, cer­tain sig­nals, though sus­pect, are not taken into account when eval­u­at­ing spe­cific­a­tions. This is the case for the effects of com­bin­a­tions of pol­lut­ants, but also for the mito­chon­dri­al effects of these products. Reg­u­lat­ory sci­ence must evolve by rap­idly integ­rat­ing the reli­able data pro­duced by aca­dem­ic research.

1MK Skin­ner et al., Trends Endo­crin­ol Metab 2010, 21(4):214–22. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2009.12.007
2MD Anway et al., Sci­ence 2005, 308(5727):1466–9. doi: 10.1126/science.1108190
3struc­tures spé­cial­isées con­tenues dans la cel­lule

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate