Abstract
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in animals has increasingly been reported in recent years. Controversies, however, surround this unconventional mode of heredity, especially in mammals, for several reasons. First, its existence itself has been questioned due to perceived insufficiency of available evidence. Second, it potentially implies transfer of hereditary information from soma to germline, against the established principle in biology. Third, it inherently requires survival of epigenetic memory across reprogramming, posing another fundamental challenge in biology. Fourth, evolutionary significance of epigenetic inheritance has also been under debate. This article pointwise addresses all these concerns on the basis of recent empirical, theoretical and conceptual advances. 1) Described here in detail are the key experimental findings demonstrating the occurrence of germline epigenetic inheritance in mammals. 2) Newly emerging evidence supporting soma to germline communication in transgenerational inheritance in mammals, and a role of exosome and extracellular microRNA in this transmission, is thoroughly discussed. 3) The plausibility of epigenetic information propagation across reprogramming is highlighted. 4) Analyses supporting evolutionary significance of epigenetic inheritance are briefly mentioned. Finally, an integrative model of ‘evolutionary transgenerational systems biology’ is proposed to provide a framework to guide future advancements in epigenetic inheritance.
Introduction
Despite the fallacy of Lamarck’s theory of evolution and its two hundred years of discredit, discourse on inheritance of acquired characteristics has staged a surprise entry in mainstream biology. In its modern avatar, this hitherto improbable mode of heredity has arrived in the garb of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. At the core is experimental evidence suggesting germline inheritance of environmentally induced phenotypes across generations in animals including mammals (1–11). In transgenerational inheritance, the epigenetic basis is theoretically inferred from an inability to explain the transmission based on known features of DNA mutation and genetic inheritance (9, 11–13), with practical demonstration that primary DNA sequence changes do not indeed underlie the reported heritability still remaining (11, 14). Overall, the transmission is considered to be mediated not by genetic mutations but by other factors in the germ cells such as the usual epigenetic marks, namely, DNA methylation and histone modifications, and non-chromatin factors like RNA that can influence gene expression and epigenetic state (2, 14–20). Epigenetic inheritance is consistent with emerging evidence supporting the post-fertilization presence and propagation of gametic DNA methylation (2, 9, 14, 21–28) and histone modifications (1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 22, 27–33), and a role of noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) in epigenetic regulation and transmission of epigenetic information across generations (1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 14, 22, 27, 28, 34–42). Although it has been argued that DNA methylation and histone modifications are not self-perpetuating and lack target specificity, as opposed to RNA that can be contributed by the gametes and bear base sequence specificities, and therefore do not truly represent ‘epigenetic’ that implies memory (43, 44), emerging evidence does suggest that these marks can be directly or indirectly inherited across generations (15, 17).
Differences in the mechanism and course of germline epigenetic modification and reprogramming render epigenetic memory survival across generations more likely in plants than animals (14, 34, 45–47). For example, unlike mammals, plant DNA methyltransferases act during gametogenesis and embryogenesis, thereby allowing propagation of DNA methylation marks from parent to progeny (45). In mammals, DNA methylation and histone marks are efficiently reset during reprogramming both in the germline and in the zygote immediately after fertilization, leaving little chance for inheritance of epigenetic modifications (14). However, evidence suggests that certain marks do escape from these reprogramming events (28, 48). Regarding RNA-mediated epigenetic information transfer, the presence of RNA-dependent RNA ploymerases in plants, as also in the worm Caenorhabditis elegans and yeast, can allow amplification of inherited small RNAs and perpetuation of epigenetic effects (38, 39). Besides post-transcriptional regulation, small RNAs can also regulate gene expression at the transcriptional level by interacting with RNA binding proteins to trigger DNA methylation in plants, yeast and mice, and to induce histone modifications in plants, yeast, worm and the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster (35, 39, 49).
Germline inheritance signifies epigenetic transmission via gametes, a mode that is distinct from context-dependent transmission wherein somatic epigenetic modifications can be imposed in each generation due to persistence of inducing factors in the environment (14–16, 22, 50–52). Theoretically, environmental exposure may induce epigenetic modifications in the germline either directly or through affecting somatic cells (53–55). The former possibility is consistent with the fundamental principle which states that hereditary information flows from germline to soma, not in reverse. The latter however poses a fundamental challenge in biology as it envisages information transfer in the reverse direction (15). In plants, the germline is formed from somatic cells following exposure of developmental and environmental cues, is poorly defined and is subjected to somatic modification (14, 45), attributes that are permissive for inheritance of acquired traits. Moreover, in plants, as also in C. elegans, small RNAs move systemically, and evidence suggests that these molecules can cross from somatic cells to germ cells and mediate transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (38, 39, 55–58). In C. elegans, for example, exogenous dsRNA induces a systemic RNAi response wherein small RNA movement from soma to germline can trigger gene silencing across generations (38, 58). Moreover, neuron to germline transmission of dsRNA leading to transgenerational silencing of a gene of matching sequence in worm has also been demonstrated recently (59). Extracellular RNAs also exist in mammals, largely contained within exosomes, and these RNAs show several similarities with mobile RNAs in plants and worm in terms of intercellular communication potential (57, 58). Interestingly, bioinformatic analyses have shown an association between circulating miRNAs and gene expression in transgenerational inheritance in mammals (60, 61). Consistent with this, a concept of exosome-mediated soma to germline information transfer in epigenetic inheritance has been advanced (10, 61–63). Remarkably, supporting experimental evidence has recently been produced in mouse (4).
In mammals, studies that report a phenotype at least in F3 generation, if not beyond, following exposure of F0 gestating female, or F2 generation following F0 male exposure, are considered transgenerational, providing evidence for epigenetic germline inheritance. This is because an environmental factor can be in direct contact with F1 and, through its germline, F2 generations in female exposure example, and with F1 in the case of male exposure. Therefore, to exclude the possibility that the phenotype observed is not caused by direct exposure, it is required that a phenotype is demonstrated in the first unexposed generation, which is F3 in the case of female exposure and F2 in the case of male exposure. Unfortunately, studies falling short of this standard have often been inappropriately termed transgenerational, creating confusion (8). Another controversy is with regard to social transmission wherein a phenotype can appear due to either a direct interaction between the ancestral and descendant generation or an indirect interaction through maternal rearing conditions that can influence descendant biology (3). Studies involving in vitro fertilization, cross-fostering and multiple descendant generations far removed from the exposed generation are therefore required to exclude possible confounding by social transmission (3). A caveat here is that in vitro fertilization and cross-fostering may themselves cause an effect and complicate analysis (64), and also, such measures would not exclude other confounders like cryptic genetic variation (15). Nevertheless, paucity of such studies has been one of the reasons for considering the existence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in mammals as uncertain (15). It is however notable that certain studies do have confirmed inheritance following in vitro fertilization (22, 65), cross-fostering (62, 66, 67) and analysis of multiple generations (12, 68–72).
Most of the reported examples of germline epigenetic inheritance in mammals relate to maternal exposure in the founding generation (51, 52). However, inferring germline epigenetic inheritance in experiments describing maternal exposure encounters greater difficulties due to, as mentioned above, potential confounds including effects of in utero environment and somatic components of oocytes, maternal care and social and behavioral transfer (14, 15, 22, 31, 52). In contrast, male contribution to offspring is supposed to be largely limited to sperm, and hence discerning germline inheritance faces lesser complications in schemes employing paternal exposure and male lineage (1, 11, 27, 31, 52, 73). A caveat here is that non-gametic ejaculate-borne information carriers may also influence the offspring phenotype following male exposure (20, 27, 74) and, in mammals, fathers can influence offspring development through direct paternal care or through affecting quality of mother-infant interactions (75). Nevertheless, reports of paternal exposure-induced inheritance via the male line have been scant, causing serious concern about existential evidence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (52). However, a few studies do have indeed produced evidence of paternal exposure-induced transmission in animals including mammals. Besides the first report in Drosophila (76), these studies describe male exposure-induced transgenerational epigenetic inheritance via paternal lineage in rats (73) and mice (22, 52, 62, 66, 77–79).
Cumulatively, germline epigenetic inheritance in animals, especially mammals, has been controversial, with not only perceived implausibility of DNA methylation and histone marks surviving reprogramming, and of soma to germline communication posing fundamental impediments in its acceptability, but also seeming deficiencies in its demonstrated occurrence causing existential dilemma (2, 3, 8, 14–16, 43, 44, 62, 80, 81). This article counters these disputes by highlighting key experimental and conceptual advances. Evolutionary significance of epigenetic inheritance is another area of debate (82–88) that this article discusses. Subsequently, an integrative model of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance based on supporting evidence is presented.
Existential evidence
As mentioned, inheritance via paternal lineage following male exposure provides stronger evidence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Experiments demonstrating that are reviewed here in detail. In the Drosophila example referred above, Sharma and Singh examined the transgenerational effect of the neuroactive drug pentylenetetrazole, a γ-aminobutyric acid receptor antagonist, in a freshly generated isogenic line (76). Of note, demonstration of epigenetic inheritance in animals using isogenic strains safeguards against potential confounding by genetic variations (80). In the fly study, the F1 and F2 generations were produced via the male line following F0 paternal exposure, and microarray-based gene expression profiling across generations was carried out to investigate if drug-induced transcriptomic changes are inherited. Interestingly, the drug was found to induce transcriptomic alterations not only in the founder males’ central nervous system (CNS) and testis, but also in the F1 CNS and testis, and the F2 CNS. In microarray clustering, the F0 male CNS closely resembled the F2 male CNS, and the F0 and F1 testis resembled the F1 and F2 CNS, in that order. This suggested that the transcriptomic effect of pentylenetetrazole is inherited through the germline. In Drosophila, epigenome reorganization occurs during both gamete differentiation and early embryogensis (89). The above fly study thus implied that environmentally induced epigenetic changes are propagated across reprogramming.
In another example, it was reported that subjecting primiparous female mice (F0) and their litters (F1) to unpredictable maternal separation combined with maternal stress (MSUS) results in inheritance of altered behavioral responses to aversive conditions in paternal line-derived F2 and F3 generations (77). The MSUS paradigm was characterized by maternal care deprivation only in F1, not F2 and F3, generation. Interestingly, Franklin et al. observed depressive-like behaviors not only in F1 males but also in F2 females and F3 males (77). Altered social exploration, on the other hand, characterized F2 and F3, not F1, males (78). As the females bred to F1 and F2 males showed normal maternal behaviors, the transmission was considered to represent epigenetic rather than social inheritance. Confounding effects of physiological and developmental factors were also considered unlikely because the males did not have any contact with their pups in the MSUS paradigm (78). Next, Franklin et al. found in F1 MSUS sperm increased DNA methylation in the CpG island surrounding the transcription initiation site of two candidate genes: Mecp2 encoding a transcriptional regulator that binds methylated DNA, and Cnr1 encoding the cannabinoid receptor-1 that is associated with emotionality in rodents (77). In contrast, a decreased methylation was observed in the CpG island located 5′ of the transcription initiation site of the Crhr2 gene that encodes corticotrophin-releasing factor receptor 2, a stress hormone receptor. Strikingly, these methylation changes were also observed in the brain of F2 females. The changes were associated with expected gene expression levels in the F2 female brain, confirming functional relevance of altered DNA methylation. Besides, like F1 sperm, F2 sperm also showed Mecp2 hypermethylation and Crhr2 hypomethylation. Males exposed to MSUS, when adult, exhibit altered behavioral responses along with changes in histone post-translational modifications at the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) gene and decreased expression levels of MR in the hippocampus (4). The behavioral characteristics were reproduced by mimicking these molecular changes in vivo through pharmacological manipulation. Both F1 MSUS males and the F2 offspring exhibited impaired long-term memory when adult. In the hippocampus of F1 and F2 individuals, the long-term potentiation (LTP) was abolished, and cross-fostering experiments provided evidence supporting male germline, not maternal care, mediated transmission of the LTP phenotype (66). Further, decreased levels of DNA methylation at the promoter of the Prkcc gene encoding brain-specific γ isoform of protein kinase C were observed both in the hippocampus of the offspring and in the sperm of fathers, with the former also showing altered levels of Prkcc expression (66). Together, these findings strengthened the epigenetic basis of MSUS-induced phenotypes. Second, like F1 MSUS males, F1 females also transmit behavioral alterations to their offspring (64). The known normal maternal behavior of these females, together with the finding that control pups cross-fostered to these females do not show altered behavioral responses, supported a germline-based inheritance rather than social transmission. In a separate study on transgenerational inheritance of chronic social instability-induced behaviors in mice, cross-fostering experiments did not provide evidence for maternal care as an underlying factor (67). Third, consistent with the understanding that stress in early life can be a metabolic dysregulator, MSUS was also found to cause altered glucose metabolism across generations (90). The F1 MSUS sperm, and the brain structures associated with stress response, hippocampus and hypothalamus, showed altered expression of miRNA including miR-375. It is notable here that in a separate study, upregulation of several miRNAs including miR-375 was independently shown in sperm of chronically and variably stressed male mice offspring of which exhibited altered stress responsivity along with gene expression changes in stress regulating brain regions (91). In the MSUS model, F2 hippocampus also exhibited abnormal miRNA levels. This suggested that MSUS-induced transmission originates from changes in F1 sperm miRNAs. Notably, injection of sperm RNA isolated from MSUS males into fertilized mouse oocytes from naive females resulted in offspring with altered behavioral, metabolic and molecular phenotypes, as observed in the offspring of MSUS-exposed males. The in vitro fertilization experiment therefore strongly supported germ cell-mediated nongenetic transmission of MSUS-induced characteristics. Notably, in vitro fertilization experiments have also provided evidence for sperm-mediated transmission in a mouse model of chronic social defeat stress-induced phenotypes (65).
In one study, epigenetic inheritance of chemical-induced hepatic fibrosis was investigated in rats (73). Zeybel et al. treated F0 adult male rats with the hepatotoxin carbon tetrachloride to induce chronic wound healing leading to liver fibrosis, allowed for injury cessation and resolution of fibrosis, and then used the rats to obtain future generations via male line. Outbred rats were used in the experiment to reduce the potential confounding influence of wound healing-related genetic traits. Notably, following carbon tetrachloride treatment, the F2 males showed, compared to control, a significantly decreased amount of fibrotic collagens and a significantly reduced number of smooth muscle α-actin positive myofibroblasts, the major cellular drivers of hepatic fibrosis, in the liver. At the molecular epigenetic level, Zeybel et al. found in the liver of F2 males, compared to control, decreased DNA methylation at specific CpG sites in the promoter region of the gene PPAR-γ, methylation-dependent repression of which is known to be critical in generation of the myofibroblast phenotype. Zeybel et al. also found higher levels of the histone modification H3K27me3 and the histone variant H2A.Z in the chromatin at the PPAR-γ promoter in the sperm of F0 founder rats with carbon tetrachloride-induced fibrosis.
In a different example, the transgenerational consequence of diet-induced paternal obesity was investigated in mouse (79). The F0 male mice were fed with a high fat diet and future generations of these mice obtained through paternal line. The metabolic health of experimental and control mice in F0, F1 and F2 was examined. In F0 males, high fat diet caused increased adiposity and hyperlipidemia, but not altered glucose homeostasis, fasting insulin levels and insulin sensitivity. The F1 offspring showed increased body weight, with males showing increased plasma leptin levels, not obesity, and females showing obesity as well as increased circulating lipids. Both males and females exhibited impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. In the F2 offspring, the males showed reduced levels of plasma leptin and the females exhibited obesity, increased pancreas and liver weight, and impaired insulin sensitivity. The testis and sperm of high-fat diet fed F0 males showed increased levels of several miRNAs. In the testis, expression levels of mRNAs that are predicted targets of these miRNAs showed downregulation, as expected. These genes enriched several processes including metabolic disease, production of reactive oxygen species, lipid metabolism, spermatogenesis and embryonic development. Global DNA methylation analysis revealed hypomethylation in F0 founder males’ testis and late elongated spermatids.
In an elegant study, Dias and Ressler investigated if olfactory experience influences future generations in mice (62). They conditioned F0 male mice with the odorant acetophenone and used them to obtain future generations via male line. Strikingly, an increased behavioral sensitivity to acetophenone was observed in the F1 and F2 offspring of acetophenone-conditioned male mice, compared to control. This increased behavioral sensitivity was found to correlate with an increased neuroanatomical representation of the olfactory receptor pathway activated by acetophenone. Dias and Ressler then collected sperm of conditioned F0 males after a washout period and performed in vitro fertilization to produce F1 offspring. Importantly, these offspring also showed an enhanced neuroanatomical representation of the acetophenone receptor pathway. To examine the possibility of maternal transmission arising due to some influence of conditioned F0 males on maternal behavior toward F1 offspring, Dias and Ressler conducted a cross-fostering experiment. In the experiment, sexually naive females with or without acetophenone conditioning were mated with acetophenone naive male mice and the resulting F1 offspring were divided into four groups: offspring of control mothers, offspring of conditioned mothers, offspring of control mothers cross-fostered by mothers conditioned to acetophenone and offspring of conditioned mothers cross-fostered by mothers not conditioned to acetophenone. As such, offspring in none of these groups were directly exposed to odor-related behavior and intrauterine learning. Interestingly, an increased behavioral sensitivity to acetophenone was observed in the second group in comparison to the first, and in the fourth group in comparison to the third. The increase was also found to correlate with an enhanced neuroanatomical representation of the acetophenone receptor pathway. These results provided strong evidence for germline inheritance of parental olfactory experience. In order to identify epigenetic modifications underlying transgenerational inheritance, Dias and Ressler examined the levels of DNA methylation in the acetophenone receptor gene in sperm of conditioned F0 male mice and their F1 offspring. Consistent with an enhanced neuroanatomical representation of the receptor pathway in F1 and F2 offspring, they found that the receptor gene was hypomethylated in both F0 and F1 sperm.
In another study, inheritance of diet- and drug-induced metabolic changes in male mice was investigated (52). Wei et al. induced insulin resistance and impaired glucose tolerance in F0 male mice by feeding a high-fat diet and injecting streptozotocin, in that order. The founder males were then used to produce subsequent generations via paternal line. Remarkably, impaired glucose tolerance and reduced insulin sensitivity were found to characterize both F1 and F2 offspring. Microarray gene expression profiling revealed differential expression of hundreds of genes in the pancreatic islets of F1 offspring, compared to control. Consistent with metabolic changes observed in offspring, these genes showed overrepresentation of several processes including insulin and glucose metabolism. Further, genome-wide DNA methylation analysis revealed thousands of differentially methylated loci including regions spanning several insulin signaling genes in F1 islets, compared to control. Notably, several of the differentially methylated loci in F1 exhibited a similar pattern in F2 islets. Additional genome-wide cytosine methylation analysis revealed thousands of differentially methylated regions in F0 sperm. The methylation pattern in F0 sperm and F1 pancreatic islets was globally correlated, suggesting that epigenetic status in the germline strongly predicts the same in the soma. Together, the experimental evidence produced in the above studies clearly suggested that non-genetic environmental factor-induced phenotypic effects can be inherited through the germline in mammals (Figure 1).

Existential evidence of transgenerational inheritance.
Cumulative findings of various studies reported so far involving paternal exposure and inheritance via male line are illustrated. Note inheritance of the phenotypic effect and its epigenetic correlates.
Soma to germline communication
Evidence of soma to germline communication in transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in mammals, with miRNA as its potential mediator, is discussed here in detail. It has been suggested that extracellular miRNAs in mammals are exchanged between cells in vitro, based on the demonstration of functional effects of miRNAs in the recipients (58). However, evidence has been lacking for mammalian circulating miRNA-mediated cell-cell communication in vivo. Notwithstanding, newer findings do suggest that extracellular miRNAs in mammals possibly play a role in soma to germline information transfer, and thereby may mediate inheritance of acquired characters. Experimental evidence for soma to germline communication in epigenetic inheritance as such was first obtained in the rat model of hepatic injury discussed above (73). As surgical liver injury, like carbon tetrachloride treatment, was also found to induce hepatic fibrosis, Zeybel et al. hypothesized that liver damage results in accumulation of a soluble factor in the serum that leads to modification of the chromatin structure in the germ stem cells and/or mature sperm. To test the hypothesis, Zeybel et al. injured rats with carbon tetrachloride, and after a washout period, transferred the serum from these animals to uninjured rats, and then examined the levels of H3K27me3 and H2A.Z at the PPAR-γ promoter in sperm of uninjured rats. Interestingly, higher levels of these chromatin marks were observed in sperm. Subsequently, Zeybel et al. hypothesized that the serum factor which mediates PPAR-γ chromatin remodeling may originate from myofibroblasts derived from hepatic stellate cells. To test this, they added media conditioned by cultured, activated rat hepatic stellate cells to rat bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and examined chromatin in the latter. Strikingly, an increased recruitment of H3K27me3 and H2A.Z was observed at the PPAR-γ promoter. These results provided evidence for a role of soma to germline communication in epigenetic inheritance, challenging the inviolability of the Weismann principle which prohibits hereditary information flow from somatic cells to germ cells (60, 92).
What could be the circulating factors that mediate soma to germline communication in inheritance of induced traits in mammals? Circulating microvesicles like exosomes, which contain miRNAs, mRNAs, proteins and lipids, have recently emerged as important mediators of intercellular communication that provide autocrine, paracrine and endocrine signals to cells by transferring their contents (93–122). Could exosomal communication be involved in epigenetic inheritance in mammals? The question seems promising in view of the following. Gamete borne miRNAs, mRNAs, proteins and lipids are all considered to potentially play regulatory and epigenetic roles in fertilization and embryonic development (40, 50, 122–135). Available evidence supports direct regulatory function of gamete borne RNAs including miRNAs in fertilization, and zygotic and embryonic development in mammals (50, 128, 130, 134). Further, sperm RNAs show potential for mediating epigenetic modifications including histone modifications and DNA methylation (128), and functional relevance of sperm borne miRNAs in epigenetic inheritance in mice has been demonstrated (4, 133, 135). Together, available evidence supports sperm RNA as a potential mediator of epigenetic inheritance across generations (136).
As certain RNA sequences are preferentially sorted into extracellular vesicles like exosomes (137, 138), a bioinformatic analysis was carried out to examine if mRNA or miRNAs that have been identified as differentially expressed after environmental exposure in the exposed generation or in the unexposed future generations overrepresent circulating miRNAs (60). The overrepresentation was examined either directly or indirectly by identifying mRNA targets of miRNAs. Similar enrichment analysis was also carried out for exosomal mRNAs and proteins (61). In the analyses of data pertaining to several mammalian species, environmental factors, life cycle stages, tissues, and generations, and both the genders, a statistically significant overrepresentation was observed across studies. These results led to the suggestion that circulating miRNAs and extracellular vesicles may possibly mediate soma to germline communication in inheritance of acquired traits in mammals (61).
Direct experimental evidence suggesting a potential role of circulating miRNAs in epigenetic inheritance in mammals was first obtained in the MSUS mouse model discussed above (4). Besides sperm and brain, the serum of F1 MSUS males was also found to exhibit altered levels of miRNAs (4). One of the miRNAs, miR-375-3p, was particularly notable in that it showed upregulation in F1 hippocampus, serum and sperm as well as in F2 hippocampus. Although the mechanisms underlying MSUS-induced alterations in sperm miRNA are unknown, one possibility could be that the stress hormones glucocorticoids reach testes through circulating blood, bind to their receptors that are expressed on sperm and somehow induce changes in miRNA expression (139). Another possible explanation however could be that miRNAs released by brain structures involved in stress response, miR-375 released by hippocampus, for example, reach testes through circulation and trigger altered miRNA expression in sperm through some mechanism. Interestingly, the hypothetical existence of an axis connecting the brain and germline was speculated previously to explain transgenerational spermatogenic inheritance of neuroactive drug-induced transcriptomic changes in the aforementioned Drosophila model (76).
Hormone or miRNA-mediated communication has also been proposed to explain odorant-induced transgenerational inheritance in mice described above (62). Although the mechanisms underlying olfactory stimulation-induced epigenetic modification in sperm remain unknown, it has been speculated that acetophenone may enter the circulation, bind to its receptor expressed on sperm and somehow affect DNA methylation in the receptor encoding gene (62). Alternatively, it has been suggested that odorant-induced fear conditioning causes release of glucocorticoids or miRNAs in the circulation, and these molecules then act on spermatogonia and direct changes in the levels of DNA methylation (10).
As mentioned above, it has been reported that male mice exposed to chronic variable stress produce offspring with altered stress response (91). This alteration is due to reduced hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis stress responsivity. Global analyses of sperm miRNAs in exposed mice and brain mRNAs in offspring have implicated epigenetic reprogramming in transmission of stress-induced phenotypes. Interestingly, consistent with the aforementioned hypothetical brain-germline axis mediating soma to germline communication (76), it has been speculated that activation of the HPA axis may cause exosomes containing stress evoked miRNAs to shuttle from epididymis to sperm, and ultimately to ovum (63). Subsequently, in the developing embryo, the miRNAs may influence formation of the HPA axis through epigenetic mechanisms. An altered HPA axis responsivity in offspring would again result in miRNA-mediated information transfer as above, thus setting off a transgenerational cascade of altered stress responsivity (63). The hypothesis is consistent with the demonstrated role of exosomes in sperm epididymal maturation, a process necessary for sperm production (140). The view that exosomal miRNA can potentially mediate soma to germline information transfer in epigenetic inheritance (60–63) is also supported by evidence suggesting involvement of miRNAs in germ cell differentiation, post-meiotic male germ cell function and growth, and development and maturation of oocytes (141). In another example, based on the observation that ethanol exposure results in persistent changes in plasma miRNAs and is associated with transgenerational inheritance of behavioral and neuronal phenotypes, the possibility has been raised that soma to germline transfer of miRNAs may underlie inheritance of ethanol-induced characters (142).
It was previously demonstrated that miRNA secreted through exosomes in a culture medium can be taken up by cells that do not express the miRNA, with downregulation of miRNA target genes shown in the recipient cells (143). However, in the absence of evidence of the cellular uptake of extracellular endogenous miRNAs contained within or outside of exosomes, the possibility that circulating miRNAs can mediate intercellular communication in vivo in mammals has been questioned (58). Interestingly, newer studies provide evidence supporting such a role for these miRNAs (101). For example, it has been shown that mice injected with atherosclerosis patients’ plasma-derived microvesicles, that show miR-150 enrichment, exhibit elevated plasma levels of miR-150, known to promote angiogenesis in vitro, and increased amount of erythrocyte-filled blood vessels (144). Similarly, given that patients with type 2 diabetes and various types of cancers also show elevated plasma levels of miR-150, both mice implanted with human tumor and ob/ob mice with a diabetic phenotype have been found to exhibit increased miR-150 plasma levels as well as elevated angiogenesis. The potential role of miR-150 in intercellular communication in vivo was further confirmed by using miR-150 inhibitor in mice experiments (144). In another example, the hypothesis was tested that multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) promote neurological recovery from stroke in rats by transferring exosomal miR-133b in vivo (145). In this, knockin and knockdown technologies were used to up- or downregulate miR-133b levels in MSCs and their corresponding exosomes, respectively, and cerebral artery occlusion was used to model stroke. Following intravenous injection of MSCs in the animals, an increased expression of miR-133b in MSCs and in the exosomes released by these cells was found to correlate with enhanced functional recovery and, in the ischemic boundary zone (IBZ), cortical axonal density and neurite remodeling. Interestingly, by tagging exosomes with a green fluorescent protein, it was demonstrated that exosomes are released from MSCs in the IBZ and transferred to adjacent astrocytes and neurons. Importantly, decreased expression of selective targets for miR-133b in the IBZ was also demonstrated. In a separate study on the murine model of in vivo bone metastasis, treatment with miR-192 enriched exosome like vesicles has been found to precondition osseous milieu, impair tumor-induced angiogenesis and reduce metastatic burden (146). Combined with the finding that miR-192 inhibits tumor-induced angiogenesis and osseous metastasis in vivo, and in vivo infusion of fluorescent labeled exosome like vesicles leads to accumulation of the label in cells of the osseous compartment, this study supported the view that exosomal miRNAs can be transferred in vivo and mediate intercellular communication. In another example, it has been found that direct intramyocardial transplantation of mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes, known to protect cardiomyocytes from hypoxia-induced apoptosis in vitro, at the border of an ischemic region in the rat heart, in which ischemia was triggered through ligation of the left anterior descending coronary artery, restores cardiac contractile function and reduces infarct size (147). Evidence suggests that the observed protection of damaged tissue was mediated by transfer of miR-19a from exosomes to cardiomyocytes, with subsequent reduction in the expression of the miRNA target PTEN and activation of the cell survival-related Akt and ERK signaling pathways in the recipient cells. Recently, in a study investigating the potential of exosomes in therapeutically blocking inflammation in the CNS, de Rivero Vaccari et al. isolated exosomes from embryonic cortical neuronal cultures, loaded them with short-interfering RNA (siRNA) against an apoptosis speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC), a protein that is elevated in spinal cord motor neurons and cortical neurons after CNS trauma, and administered the loaded exosomes to spinal cord-injured animals (148). Remarkably, the exosomes were found to cross the injured blood-spinal cord barrier and deliver their cargo in vivo, with ASC protein levels showing a decline.
Importantly, the potential for exosomal RNA-mediated soma to germline communication in transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in mammals has been demonstrated recently (149). Cossetti et al. subcutaneously injected human melanoma cells stably expressing an enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) in male mice and, after tumor growth, collected samples of plasma and epididymal spermatozoa from the xenografted animals. Interestingly, Cossetti et al. found that EGFP RNA is present not only in the circulating exosomes but also in sperm heads. Given that all possible sources of cell contamination and experimental artefacts were addressed in the study, these results strongly supported the possibility that RNA expressed in somatic cells can be transferred to male germline cells through circulating extracellular vesicles. Cumulatively, the evidence obtained in the above studies is consistent with the idea that exosomes and extracellular RNAs may potentially mediate soma to germline information transfer in inheritance of acquired characters in mammals (Figure 2).

Soma to germline communication.
Combined evidence supporting information transfer from somatic cells to germ cells in transgenerational inheritance. Note that circulating exosomal miRNA is the potential mediator.
Epigenetic memory
In a Drosophila model of paternal sugar-induced offspring obesity, germline transmission involving heterochromatin embedded gene expression has been shown to associate with H3K9me3- and H3K27me3-dependent reprogramming of metabolic genes in two distinct germline and zygotic windows (31). Evidence suggests that chromatin-dependent signatures in this model are forecast in the paternal germline, providing an example of epigenetic memory across generations. In the vertebrate model organism zebrafish, inheritance of DNA methylome has been demonstrated, with the early embryos displaying a sperm methylome pattern (21). In mice, genome-wide analysis suggests that rare but functionally relevant methylation epialleles could survive reprogramming and be inherited transgenerationally (48). Single loci DNA methylation marks have been found to resist demethylation in both male and female primordial germ cells in mice. Notably, it has been observed that reprogramming resistant single loci typically also escape erasure in the early embryo, providing potential substrates for epigenetic inheritance (28).
Evidence for survival of histone modifications across reprogramming has also been obtained, even in sperm where histones are largely replaced by protamines (28). Remarkably, reprogramming resistant sperm nucleosomes show enrichment for H2K27me3, suggesting that this mark may represent an inherited signal (28). In a study on the formation of constitutive heterochromatin in human preimplantation embryos, it has been found that canonical histone modifications are retained in this region in sperm chromatin, transmitted to the oocyte, incorporated in paternal embryonic constitutive heterochromatin, and recognized by H3K9me3/HP1 pathway maternal chromatin modifiers and propagated over the embryonic cleavage divisions (33). These findings support the occurrence of transgenerational epigenetic memory in human. Regarding the underlying mechanisms, evidence suggests involvement of the maintenance DNA methyltransferase DNMT1 that restores DNA methylation on the newly synthesized DNA after replication in mammals (15, 150, 151). For histone modifications, either the marks themselves may remain associated with the daughter chromatin after replication, as shown in C. elegans, or histone modifying complexes that remain anchored to the daughter DNA reestablish the marks after replication, as suggested by investigations in Drosophila (29, 30, 32). Interestingly, theoretical modeling based on experimental data related to nearest-neighbor lateral enzyme interactions and nucleosome modification associated enzyme recruitment has revealed that histone marks can be profoundly inheritable despite interference of stochastic cellular processes (152).
The widely considered view of extensive reprogramming in mammals notwithstanding, available evidence suggests that a significant amount of epigenetic information is transmitted across generations, and the message that is passed on may potentially affect early mammalian embryogenesis (153). Experimental findings show that mammalian germ cells in vivo maintain bivalent histone modifications, associated with both gene activation and repression, at promoters of several genes involved in somatic development, with the marks retained from developmental stages through meiosis and gametogenesis (154). A conceptual model of intrinsic transgenerational inheritance has been proposed in which hypothetical bivalent histone modifications in the germ cells are speculated to regulate somatic development in the next generation (152, 154). Also, the known influence of histone modifications on DNA methylation raises further possibilities for epigenetic inheritance. Although regulation of genomic DNA methylation patterns and the mechanisms underlying recruitment and activity of DNA methyltransferases in vivo are unclear, recent experimental findings do establish a role of sequence and histone marks in directing de novo enzyme activity and methylome integrity (19, 155).
As regards RNA-mediated epigenetic information transfer, the presence of RNA-dependent RNA polymerases in plants, as also in the worm C. elegans and yeast, can allow amplification of inherited small RNAs and perpetuation of epigenetic effects (38, 39). Besides post-transcriptional regulation, evidence suggests that small RNAs can also regulate gene expression at transcriptional level by interacting with RNA binding proteins to trigger DNA methylation in plants, yeast and mice, and histone modifications in plants, yeast, worm and the fruit fly D. melanogaster (35, 39, 49). The concept is emerging that small RNAs, in their cell of origin or in the host cell upon short- or long-distance transfer, bind to proteins that act in the nucleus and the resulting complex together regulates gene expression, with the small RNAs base pairing with partially or fully transcribed nascent mRNAs and the proteins directing methyltransferases and histone modifiers at the target site through interactions (39). The RNA-mediated epigenetic inheritance has been demonstrated in mice, wherein injection of sperm RNA of a mutant, as also of mutant gene-specific miRNAs, into the pronuclei of fertilized mouse eggs was shown to cause appearance of the mutant phenotype (133). In this model, miRNA injection was associated with inheritance of a distinct histone modification in the promoter region of a target gene (156). Given the presence of a complex and diverse set of RNAs in spermatozoa, ova and early embryos, and the evidence that fertilized eggs possess a reservoir of RNAs contributed by germ cells, the concept has emerged that inherited RNAs influence embryonic development through various gene regulatory mechanisms (37). These mechanisms may involve transcription, translation, transcript stability or other yet unknown regulatory pathways (37). As gametes are considered transcriptionally quiescent, demonstration of transcript stabilizing post-transcriptional RNA modifications in spermatozoa provides support to RNA-mediated inheritance (37, 157). Also, sequence-based mechanisms involving RNA binding proteins and antisense RNAs have been suggested to stabilize RNAs in oocytes and zygotes (37, 158). Altogether, evidence obtained so far supports the view that epigenetic information can be transmitted across generations without being dissolved during reprogramming in animals including mammals (Figure 3).

Epigenetic information propagation.
Accumulated evidence of epigenetic information propagation across generations is depicted. Note survival of marks across both zygotic and early embryonic reprogramming.
Evolutionary significance
With increasing appreciation of its potential evolutionary significance, epigenetic inheritance challenges the established neo-Darwinian dogma that evolution is driven exclusively by random mutational events in the germline followed independently by natural selection (84–86, 159–167). For example, epigenetic inheritance of DNA methylation associated gene expression and phenotypic variations is considered to potentially play an evolutionary significant role. Evidence supporting a role of epialleles in evolution has been obtained from genome-wide signatures of DNA methylation in plant, avian and mammalian species (159–176). It has been suggested that in evolutionary time course mutations may arise that fix the epialleles in a genetic context (81, 177). The 5-methylcytosine is an unstable DNA modification, with mCpG transitions from C to T occurring due to a variety of processes including spontaneous and enzymatic deamination (13, 178). It therefore seems plausible that mCpG is fixed as T following error-prone replication repair (179).
Besides empirical evidence, theoretical considerations and modeling also suggest that epigenetic inheritance can contribute to and accelerate evolutionary processes (5, 53, 160, 165, 180–190). The idea has therefore emerged that modern synthesis, the contemporary theory of evolution based exclusively on Darwinism and principles in genetics, needs to include non-genetic inheritance and lead to a new extended evolutionary synthesis (88, 187, 191–193). Notably, given a role of DNA methylation in ncRNA-mediated regulation of gene expression, and a propensity of methylated cytosine to change to thymine, a theory of ‘RNA-mediated gene evolution’ has recently been proposed to suggest that RNA may possibly participate in the natural selective process to drive not only cellular but also organismal evolution (194). Cumulatively, it is increasingly being recognized that epigenetic inheritance possibly plays a significant role in evolution (Figure 4).

Evolutionary significance of epigenetic inheritance.
Available empirical evidence and theoretical considerations for potential implication of epigenetic inheritance in evolution are outlined. Note that epigenetic modification may lead to genetic variation in due course.
Integrative model
Recent advances discussed in the above sections provide enough evidence to conceptualize an integrative model of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (Figure 5). In this model, an environmental factor can affect the exposed generations differently, with epigenetic modification in the germline being the common effect. This modification can be caused by the environmental factor either directly or through somatic alterations. In the latter scenario, the hereditary information can be transmitted from the soma to the germline through exosomes and circulating RNA-mediated intercellular communication system. Once established in the germline, the epigenetic modification can be transmitted to the next generation by escaping erasure during epigenome reorganization and reprogramming. This may lead to a self-perpetuating cycle of soft inheritance. In evolutionary time course, the epigenetic modification may disappear or continue to persist as such or transform into a genetic mutation and become a part of hard inheritance. This evolutionary systems biology perspective of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance provides a broad framework that may guide future course of experiments and theoretical discourse. It is notable here that a concept of ‘transgenerational systems biology’ was recently proposed based on the bioinformatic prediction that exosomal contents may mediate soma to germline communication in inheritance of acquired traits (61, 195). This model conceptualizes that environmental exposure sequentially leads to alterations in the systems biology of somatic cells, release of circulating factors, interactomic perturbation-induced epigenetic modifications in the germline, transmission of epigenetic factors to the oocyte, gene network alterations in the embryo and phenotype appearance in the adult. Recent experimental demonstration of circulating miRNA association in transgenerational inheritance (4, 22) and transfer of exosomal RNA from soma to germline (149) in mice indeed provided evidence supporting that concept.
Conclusion
The skepticisms surrounding the existence of epigenetic germline inheritance in mammals are increasingly being resolved. Studies have been addressing the possible confounding effects and providing credible evidence for the occurrence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in rats and mice. Regarding seemingly implausible soma to germline communication, newer findings support the idea that exosome and circulating miRNA may mediate intercellular communication in epigenetic inheritance in mammals. As regards epigenetic memory, available evidence suggests that information in the form of DNA methylation, histone modifications and RNA can be propagated across generations in animals including mammals. Besides, evidence favoring a role of epigenetic inheritance in evolution is accumulating. Together, emerging advances in epigenetic inheritance are expanding the frontiers in biology.
Note added in proof: Two recently published papers separately report the inheritance of ectopically induced domains of the histone modification H3K9me through many mitotic and meiotic cell divisions in the absence of DNA sequence-specific initiator, in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe (Ragunathan et al., Science 2015, doi: 10.1126/science.1258699; Audergon et al., Science 2015, doi: 10.1126/science.1260638). The reported studies demonstrate that a direct read-write mechanism involving H3K9 methyltransferase can stably copy and propagate H3K9me across generations. This evidence for sequence-independent transgenerational memory survival immensely supports the mechanistic plausibility of nongenetic inheritance.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the network project BSC0122 of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India.
References
1. Choi Y, Mango SE. Hunting for Darwin’s gemmules and Lamarck’s fluid: transgenerational signaling and histone methylation. Biochim Biophys Acta 2014; 1839: 1440–53.10.1016/j.bbagrm.2014.05.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Daxinger L, Whitelaw E. Understanding transgenerational epigenetic inheritance via the gametes in mammals. Nat Rev Genet 2012; 13: 153–62.10.1038/nrg3188Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Dias BG, Maddox SA, Klengel T, Ressler KJ. Epigenetic mechanisms underlying learning and the inheritance of learned behaviors. Trends Neurosci 2014; 38: 96–107.10.1016/j.tins.2014.12.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
4. Gapp K, von Ziegler L, Tweedie-Cullen RY, Mansuy IM. Early life epigenetic programming and transmission of stress-induced traits in mammals: how and when can environmental factors influence traits and their transgenerational inheritance? Bioessays 2014; 36: 491–502.10.1002/bies.201300116Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Jablonka E. Epigenetic variations in heredity and evolution. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012; 92: 683–8.10.1038/clpt.2012.158Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Kelly WG. Transgenerational epigenetics in the germline cycle of Caenorhabditis elegans. Epigenetics Chromatin 2014; 7: 6.10.1186/1756-8935-7-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
7. Lim JP, Brunet A. Bridging the transgenerational gap with epigenetic memory. Trends Genet 2013; 29: 176–86.10.1016/j.tig.2012.12.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
8. Skinner MK. Environmental stress and epigenetic transgenerational inheritance. BMC Med 2014; 12: 153.10.1186/s12916-014-0153-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
9. Soubry A, Hoyo C, Jirtle RL, Murphy SK. A paternal environmental legacy: evidence for epigenetic inheritance through the male germ line. Bioessays 2014; 36: 359–71.10.1002/bies.201300113Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
10. Szyf M. Nongenetic inheritance and transgenerational epigenetics. Trends Mol Med 2015; 21: 134–44.10.1016/j.molmed.2014.12.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Wei Y, Schatten H, Sun QY. Environmental epigenetic inheritance through gametes and implications for human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 21: 194–208.10.1093/humupd/dmu061Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Anway MD, Memon MA, Uzumcu M, Skinner MK. Transgenerational effect of the endocrine disruptor vinclozolin on male spermatogenesis. J Androl 2006; 27: 868–79.10.2164/jandrol.106.000349Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Skinner MK, Manikkam M, Guerrero-Bosagna C. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of environmental factors in disease etiology. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2010; 21: 214–22.10.1016/j.tem.2009.12.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
14. Heard E, Martienssen RA. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: myths and mechanisms. Cell 2014; 157: 95–109.10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.045Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
15. Campos EI, Stafford JM, Reinberg D. Epigenetic inheritance: histone bookmarks across generations. Trends Cell Biol 2014; 24: 664–74.10.1016/j.tcb.2014.08.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Crews D, Gore AC. Transgenerational Epigenetics Evidence and Debate. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier/Academic Press, 2014.10.1016/B978-0-12-405944-3.00026-XSearch in Google Scholar
17. D’Urso A, Brickner JH. Mechanisms of epigenetic memory. Trends Genet 2014; 30: 230–6.10.1016/j.tig.2014.04.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. Greer EL, Beese-Sims SE, Brookes E, Spadafora R, Zhu Y, Rothbart SB, Aristizábal-Corrales D, Chen S, Badeaux AI, Jin Q, Wang W, Strahl BD, Colaiácovo MP, Shi Y. A histone methylation network regulates transgenerational epigenetic memory in C. elegans. Cell Rep 2014; 7: 113–26.10.1016/j.celrep.2014.02.044Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
19. Guo X, Wang L, Li J, Ding Z, Xiao J, Yin X, He S, Shi P, Dong L, Li G, Tian C, Wang J, Cong Y, Xu Y. Structural insight into autoinhibition and histone H3-induced activation of DNMT3A. Nature 2015; 517: 640–4.10.1038/nature13899Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Lane M, Robker RL, Robertson SA. Parenting from before conception. Science 2014; 345: 756–60.10.1126/science.1254400Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Ci W, Liu J. Programming and inheritance of parental DNA methylomes in vertebrates. Physiology (Bethesda) 2015; 30: 63–68.10.1152/physiol.00037.2014Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Gapp K, Jawaid A, Sarkies P, Bohacek J, Pelczar P, Prados J, Farinelli L, Miska E, Mansuy IM. Implication of sperm RNAs in transgenerational inheritance of the effects of early trauma in mice. Nat Neurosci 2014; 17: 667–9.10.1038/nn.3695Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
23. Jiang L, Zhang J, Wang JJ, Wang L, Zhang L, Li G, Yang X, Ma X, Sun X, Cai J, Zhang J, Huang X, Yu M, Wang X, Liu F, Wu CI, He C, Zhang B, Ci W, Liu J. Sperm, but not oocyte, DNA methylome is inherited by zebrafish early embryos. Cell 2013; 153: 773–84.10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.041Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
24. Potok ME, Nix DA, Parnell TJ, Cairns BR. Reprogramming the maternal zebrafish genome after fertilization to match the paternal methylation pattern. Cell 2013; 153: 759–72.10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.030Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
25. Puri D, Dhawan J, Mishra RK. The paternal hidden agenda: epigenetic inheritance through sperm chromatin. Epigenetics 2010; 5: 386–91.10.4161/epi.5.5.12005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
26. Radford EJ, Ito M, Shi H, Corish JA, Yamazawa K, Isganaitis E, Seisenberger S, Hore TA, Reik W, Erkek S, Peters AH, Patti ME, Ferguson-Smith AC. In utero undernourishment perturbs the adult sperm methylome and intergenerational metabolism. Science 2014; 345: 1255903. doi: 10.1126/science.1255903.10.1126/science.1255903Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
27. Rando OJ. Daddy issues: paternal effects on phenotype. Cell 2012; 151: 702–8.10.1016/j.cell.2012.10.020Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
28. Toth M. Mechanisms of non-genetic inheritance and psychiatric disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology 2015; 40: 129–40.10.1038/npp.2014.127Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
29. Gaydos LJ, Wang W, Strome S. Gene repression. H3K27me and PRC2 transmit a memory of repression across generations and during development. Science 2014; 345: 1515–8.10.1126/science.1255023Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
30. Kelly WG. Multigenerational chromatin marks: no enzymes need apply. Dev Cell 2014; 31: 142–4.10.1016/j.devcel.2014.10.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed
31. Ost A, Lempradl A, Casas E, Weigert M, Tiko T, Deniz M, Pantano L, Boenisch U, Itskov PM, Stoeckius M, Ruf M, Rajewsky N, Reuter G, Iovino N, Ribeiro C, Alenius M, Heyne S, Vavouri T, Pospisilik JA. Paternal diet defines offspring chromatin state and intergenerational obesity. Cell 2014; 159: 1352–64.10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
32. Petruk S, Sedkov Y, Johnston DM, Hodgson JW, Black KL, Kovermann SK, Beck S, Canaani E, Brock HW, Mazo A. TrxG and PcG proteins but not methylated histones remain associated with DNA through replication. Cell 2012; 150: 922–33.10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.046Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
33. van de Werken C, van der Heijden GW, Eleveld C, Teeuwssen M, Albert M, Baarends WM, Laven JS, Peters AH, Baart EB. Paternal heterochromatin formation in human embryos is H3K9/HP1 directed and primed by sperm-derived histone modifications. Nat Commun 2014; 5: 5868. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6868.10.1038/ncomms6868Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
34. Calarco JP, Borges F, Donoghue MT, Van Ex F, Jullien PE, Lopes T, Gardner R, Berger F, Feijó JA, Becker JD, Martienssen RA. Reprogramming of DNA methylation in pollen guides epigenetic inheritance via small RNA. Cell 2012; 151: 194–205.10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
35. Castel SE, Martienssen RA. RNA interference in the nucleus: roles for small RNAs in transcription, epigenetics and beyond. Nat Rev Genet 2013; 14: 100–12.10.1038/nrg3355Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
36. Holoch D, Moazed D. RNA-mediated epigenetic regulation of gene expression. Nat Rev Genet 2015; 16: 71–84.10.1038/nrg3863Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
37. Liebers R, Rassoulzadegan M, Lyko F. Epigenetic regulation by heritable RNA. PLoS Genet 2014; 10: e1004296.10.1371/journal.pgen.1004296Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
38. Rechavi O. Guest list or black list: heritable small RNAs as immunogenic memories. Trends Cell Biol 2014; 24: 212–20.10.1016/j.tcb.2013.10.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
39. Sela M, Kloog Y, Rechavi O. Non-coding RNAs as the bridge between epigenetic mechanisms, lineages and domains of life. J Physiol 2014; 592: 2369–73.10.1113/jphysiol.2014.273045Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
40. Stoeckius M, Grün D, Rajewsky N. Paternal RNA contributions in the Caenorhabditis elegans zygote. EMBO J 2014; 33: 1740–50.10.15252/embj.201488117Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
41. Stuwe E, Tóth KF, Aravin AA. Small but sturdy: small RNAs in cellular memory and epigenetics. Genes Dev 2014; 28: 423–31.10.1101/gad.236414.113Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
42. Yan W. Potential roles of noncoding RNAs in environmental epigenetic transgenerational inheritance. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2014; 398: 24–30.10.1016/j.mce.2014.09.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
43. Ptashne M. Epigenetics: core misconcept. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013; 110: 7101–3.10.1073/pnas.1305399110Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
44. Ptashne M. Faddish stuff: epigenetics and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. FASEB J 2013; 27: 1–2.10.1096/fj.13-0101ufmSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
45. Bond DM, Baulcombe DC. Small RNAs and heritable epigenetic variation in plants. Trends Cell Biol 2014; 24: 100–7.10.1016/j.tcb.2013.08.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed
46. Iwasaki M, Paszkowski J. Epigenetic memory in plants. EMBO J 2014; 33: 1987–98.10.15252/embj.201488883Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
47. Kinoshita T, Seki M. Epigenetic memory for stress response and adaptation in plants. Plant Cell Physiol 2014; 55: 1859–63.10.1093/pcp/pcu125Search in Google Scholar PubMed
48. Hackett JA, Sengupta R, Zylicz JJ, Murakami K, Lee C, Down TA, Surani MA. Germline DNA demethylation dynamics and imprint erasure through 5-hydroxymethylcytosine. Science 2013; 339: 448–52.10.1126/science.1229277Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
49. Law JA, Jacobsen SE. Establishing, maintaining and modifying DNA methylation patterns in plants and animals. Nat Rev Genet 2010; 11: 204–20.10.1038/nrg2719Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
50. Bohacek J, Gapp K, Saab BJ, Mansuy IM. Transgenerational epigenetic effects on brain functions. Biol Psychiatry 2013; 73: 313–20.10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.08.019Search in Google Scholar PubMed
51. Crews D, Gillette R, Scarpino SV, Manikkam M, Savenkova MI, Skinner MK. Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of altered stress responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 9143–8.10.1073/pnas.1118514109Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
52. Wei Y, Yang CR, Wei YP, Zhao ZA, Hou Y, Schatten H, Sun QY. Paternally induced transgenerational inheritance of susceptibility to diabetes in mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014; 111: 1873–8.10.1073/pnas.1321195111Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
53. Jablonka E. Epigenetic inheritance and plasticity: the responsive germline. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2013; 111: 99–107.10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2012.08.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed
54. Jablonka E, Raz G. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: prevalence, mechanisms, and implications for the study of heredity and evolution. Q Rev Biol 2009; 84: 131–76.10.1086/598822Search in Google Scholar PubMed
55. Sharma A. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: focus on soma to germline information transfer. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2013; 113: 439–46.10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2012.12.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
56. Chitwood DH, Timmermans MC. Small RNAs are on the move. Nature 2010; 467: 415–9.10.1038/nature09351Search in Google Scholar PubMed
57. Rechavi O, Houri-Ze’evi L, Anava S, Goh WS, Kerk SY, Hannon GJ, Hobert O. Starvation-induced transgenerational inheritance of small RNAs in C. elegans. Cell 2014; 158: 277–87.10.1016/j.cell.2014.06.020Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
58. Sarkies P, Miska EA. Small RNAs break out: the molecular cell biology of mobile small RNAs. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2014; 15: 525–35.10.1038/nrm3840Search in Google Scholar PubMed
59. Devanapally S, Ravikumar S, Jose AM. Double-stranded RNA made in C. elegans neurons can enter the germline and cause transgenerational gene silencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015; 112: 2133–8.10.1073/pnas.1423333112Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
60. Sharma A. Novel transcriptome data analysis implicates circulating microRNAs in epigenetic inheritance in mammals. Gene 2014; 538: 366–72.10.1016/j.gene.2014.01.051Search in Google Scholar PubMed
61. Sharma A. Bioinformatic analysis revealing association of exosomal mRNAs and proteins in epigenetic inheritance. J Theor Biol 2014; 357: 143–9.10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.05.019Search in Google Scholar PubMed
62. Dias BG, Ressler KJ. Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations. Nat Neurosci 2014; 17: 89–96.10.1038/nn.3594Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
63. Smythies J, Edelstein L, Ramachandran V. Molecular mechanisms for the inheritance of acquired characteristics – exosomes, microRNA shuttling, fear and stress: Lamarck resurrected? Front Genet 2014; 5: 133.10.3389/fgene.2014.00133Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
64. Weiss IC, Franklin TB, Vizi S, Mansuy IM. Inheritable effect of unpredictable maternal separation on behavioral responses in mice. Front Behav Neurosci 2011; 5: 3.10.3389/fnbeh.2011.00003Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
65. Dietz DM, Laplant Q, Watts EL, Hodes GE, Russo SJ, Feng J, Oosting RS, Vialou V, Nestler EJ. Paternal transmission of stress-induced pathologies. Biol Psychiatry 2011; 70: 408–14.10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.05.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
66. Bohacek J, Farinelli M, Mirante O, Steiner G, Gapp K, Coiret G, Ebeling M, Durán-Pacheco G, Iniguez AL, Manuella F, Moreau JL, Mansuy IM. Pathological brain plasticity and cognition in the offspring of males subjected to postnatal traumatic stress. Mol Psychiatry 2014; doi: 10.1038/mp.2014.80.10.1038/mp.2014.80Search in Google Scholar PubMed
67. Saavedra-Rodríguez L, Feig LA. Chronic social instability induces anxiety and defective social interactions across generations. Biol Psychiatry 2013; 73: 44–53.10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.06.035Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
68. Anway MD, Cupp AS, Uzumcu M, Skinner MK. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of endocrine disruptors and male fertility. Science 2005; 308: 1466–9.10.1126/science.1108190Search in Google Scholar PubMed
69. Anway MD, Leathers C, Skinner MK. Endocrine disruptor vinclozolin induced epigenetic transgenerational adult-onset disease. Endocrinology 2006; 147: 5515–23.10.1210/en.2006-0640Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
70. Anway MD, Skinner MK. Transgenerational effects of the endocrine disruptor vinclozolin on the prostate transcriptome and adult onset disease. Prostate 2008; 68: 517–29.10.1002/pros.20724Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
71. Bruner-Tran KL, Osteen KG. Developmental exposure to TCDD reduces fertility and negatively affects pregnancy outcomes across multiple generations. Reprod Toxicol 2011; 31: 344–50.10.1016/j.reprotox.2010.10.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
72. Manikkam M, Haque MM, Guerrero-Bosagna C, Nilsson EE, Skinner MK. Pesticide methoxychlor promotes the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult-onset disease through the female germline. PLoS One 2014; 9: e102091.10.1371/journal.pone.0102091Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
73. Zeybel M, Hardy T, Wong YK, Mathers JC, Fox CR, Gackowska A, Oakley F, Burt AD, Wilson CL, Anstee QM, Barter MJ, Masson S, Elsharkawy AM, Mann DA, Mann J. Multigenerational epigenetic adaptation of the hepatic wound-healing response. Nat Med 2012; 18: 1369–77.10.1038/nm.2893Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
74. Crean AJ, Bonduriansky R. What is a paternal effect? Trends Ecol Evol 2014; 29: 554–9.10.1016/j.tree.2014.07.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed
75. Braun K, Champagne FA. Paternal influences on offspring development: behavioural and epigenetic pathways. J Neuroendocrinol 2014; 26: 697–706.10.1111/jne.12174Search in Google Scholar PubMed
76. Sharma A, Singh P. Detection of transgenerational spermatogenic inheritance of adult male acquired CNS gene expression characteristics using a Drosophila systems model. PLoS One 2009; 4: e5763.10.1371/journal.pone.0005763Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
77. Franklin TB, Russig H, Weiss IC, Gräff J, Linder N, Michalon A, Vizi S, Mansuy IM. Epigenetic transmission of the impact of early stress across generations. Biol Psychiatry 2010; 68: 408–15.10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.05.036Search in Google Scholar PubMed
78. Franklin TB, Linder N, Russig H, Thöny B, Mansuy IM. Influence of early stress on social abilities and serotonergic functions across generations in mice. PLoS One 2011; 6: e21842.10.1371/journal.pone.0021842Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
79. Fullston T, Ohlsson Teague EM, Palmer NO, DeBlasio MJ, Mitchell M, Corbett M, Print CG, Owens JA, Lane M. Paternal obesity initiates metabolic disturbances in two generations of mice with incomplete penetrance to the F2 generation and alters the transcriptional profile of testis and sperm microRNA content. FASEB J 2013; 27: 4226–43.10.1096/fj.12-224048Search in Google Scholar PubMed
80. Burggren WW. Epigenetics as a source of variation in comparative animal physiology – or – Lamarck is lookin’ pretty good these days. J Exp Biol 2014; 217: 682–9.10.1242/jeb.086132Search in Google Scholar PubMed
81. Grossniklaus U, Kelly WG, Ferguson-Smith AC, Pembrey M, Lindquist S. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: how important is it? Nat Rev Genet 2013; 14: 228–35.10.1038/nrg3435Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
82. Dickins TE, Rahman Q. The extended evolutionary synthesis and the role of soft inheritance in evolution. Proc Biol Sci 2012; 279: 2913–21.Search in Google Scholar
83. Furrow RE. Epigenetic inheritance, epimutation, and the response to selection. PLoS One 2014; 9: e101559.10.1371/journal.pone.0101559Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
84. Furrow RE, Feldman MW. Genetic variation and the evolution of epigenetic regulation. Evolution 2014; 68: 673–83.10.1111/evo.12225Search in Google Scholar PubMed
85. Noble D. Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology. Exp Physiol 2013; 98: 1235–43.10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134Search in Google Scholar PubMed
86. Noble D. Evolution beyond neo-Darwinism: a new conceptual framework. J Exp Biol 2015; 218: 7–13.10.1242/jeb.106310Search in Google Scholar PubMed
87. Richards C, Bossdorf O, Pigliucci M. What role does heritable epigenetic variation play in phenotypic evolution? BioScience 2010; 60: 232–7.10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.9Search in Google Scholar
88. Suter CM, Boffelli D, Martin DI. A role for epigenetic inheritance in modern evolutionary theory? A comment in response to Dickins and Rahman. Proc Biol Sci 2013; 280: 20131820. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.0903.10.1098/rspb.2013.0903Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
89. Iovino N. Drosophila epigenome reorganization during oocyte differentiation and early embryogenesis. Brief Funct Genomics 2014; 13: 246–53.10.1093/bfgp/elu007Search in Google Scholar PubMed
90. Gapp K, Soldado-Magraner S, Alvarez-Sánchez M, Bohacek J, Vernaz G, Shu H, Franklin TB, Wolfer D, Mansuy IM. Early life stress in fathers improves behavioural flexibility in their offspring. Nat Commun 2014; 5: 5466.10.1038/ncomms6466Search in Google Scholar PubMed
91. Rodgers AB, Morgan CP, Bronson SL, Revello S, Bale TL. Paternal stress exposure alters sperm microRNA content and reprograms offspring HPA stress axis regulation. J Neurosci 2013; 33: 9003–12.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0914-13.2013Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
92. Seki Y. Serum-mediated transgenerational effects on sperm: evidence for lamarckian inheritance? Hepatology 2013; 57: 1663–5.10.1002/hep.26240Search in Google Scholar PubMed
93. An K, Klyubin I, Kim Y, Jung JH, Mably AJ, O’Dowd ST, Lynch T, Kanmert D, Lemere CA, Finan GM, Park JW, Kim TW, Walsh DM, Rowan MJ, Kim JH. Exosomes neutralize synaptic-plasticity-disrupting activity of Aβ assemblies in vivo. Mol Brain 2013; 6: 47.10.1186/1756-6606-6-47Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
94. Aoi W, Sakuma K. Does regulation of skeletal muscle function involve circulating microRNAs? Front Physiol 2014; 5: 39.10.3389/fphys.2014.00039Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
95. Beninson LA, Fleshner M. Exosomes: an emerging factor in stress-induced immunomodulation. Semin Immunol 2014; 26: 394–401.10.1016/j.smim.2013.12.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed
96. Braicu C, Tomuleasa C, Monroig P, Cucuianu A, Berindan-Neagoe I, Calin GA. Exosomes as divine messengers: are they the Hermes of modern molecular oncology? Cell Death Differ 2015; 22: 34–45.10.1038/cdd.2014.130Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
97. Colombo M, Raposo G, Théry C. Biogenesis, secretion, and intercellular interactions of exosomes and other extracellular vesicles. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 2014; 30: 255–89.10.1146/annurev-cellbio-101512-122326Search in Google Scholar PubMed
98. EL Andaloussi S, Mäger I, Breakefield XO, Wood MJ. Extracellular vesicles: biology and emerging therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2013; 12, 347–57.10.1038/nrd3978Search in Google Scholar PubMed
99. Gangoda L, Boukouris S, Liem M, Kalra H, Mathivanan S. Extracellular vesicles including exosomes are mediators of signal transduction: are they protective or pathogenic? Proteomics 2014; 15: 260–71.10.1002/pmic.201400234Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
100. Giricz Z, Varga ZV, Baranyai T, Sipos P, Pálóczi K, Kittel Á, Buzás EI, Ferdinandy P. Cardioprotection by remote ischemic preconditioning of the rat heart is mediated by extracellular vesicles. J Mol Cell Cardiol 2014; 68: 75–8.10.1016/j.yjmcc.2014.01.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
101. van der Grein SG, Nolte-’t Hoen EN. “Small talk” in the innate immune system via RNA-containing extracellular vesicles. Front Immunol 2014; 5: 542.10.3389/fimmu.2014.00542Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
102. Gupt A, Pulliam L, Exosomes as mediators of neuroinflammation. J Neuroinflammation 2014; 11, 68.10.1186/1742-2094-11-68Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
103. Higa GS, de Sousa E, Walter LT, Kinjo ER, Resende RR, Kihara AH. MicroRNAs in neuronal communication. Mol. Neurobiol. 2014; 49: 1309–26.Search in Google Scholar
104. Kumar Jella K, Rani S, O’Driscoll L, McClean B, Byrne HJ, Lyng FM. Exosomes are involved in mediating radiation induced bystander signaling in human keratinocyte cells. Radiat Res 2014; 181: 138–45.10.1667/RR13337.1Search in Google Scholar PubMed
105. Li Y, Shen Z, Yu XY. Transport of microRNAs via exosomes. Nat Rev Cardiol 2015; 12: 198. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2014.207-c1.10.1038/nrcardio.2014.207-c1Search in Google Scholar PubMed
106. Lombardo D, Siret C, Beloribi-Djefaflia S. Exosomal lipids impact on tumoral cell behavior. Cell Cycle 2015; 14: 461–2. doi: 10.1080/15384101.2015.1006538.10.1080/15384101.2015.1006538Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
107. Lukic ML, Pejnovic N, Lukic A. New insight into early events in type 1 diabetes: role for islet stem cell exosomes. Diabetes 2014; 63: 835–7.10.2337/db13-1786Search in Google Scholar PubMed
108. Mittelbrunn M, Vicente Manzanares M, Sánchez-Madrid F. Organizing polarized delivery of exosomes at synapses. Traffic 2015; doi: 10.1111/tra.12258.10.1111/tra.12258Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
109. Nazarenko I, Rupp AK, Altevogt P. Exosomes as a potential tool for a specific delivery of functional molecules. Methods Mol Biol 2013; 1049: 495–511.10.1007/978-1-62703-547-7_37Search in Google Scholar PubMed
110. Rajendran L, Bali J, Barr MM, Court FA, Krämer-Albers EM, Picou F, Raposo G, van der Vos KE, van Niel G, Wang J, Breakefield XO. Emerging roles of extracellular vesicles in the nervous system. J Neurosci 2014; 34: 15482–9.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3258-14.2014Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
111. Record M, Poirot M, Silvente-Poirot S. Emerging concepts on the role of exosomes in lipid metabolic diseases. Biochimie 2014; 96: 67–74.10.1016/j.biochi.2013.06.016Search in Google Scholar PubMed
112. Record M. Intercellular communication by exosomes in placenta: a possible role in cell fusion? Placenta 2014; 35: 297–302.10.1016/j.placenta.2014.02.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed
113. Robbins PD, Morelli AE. Regulation of immune responses by extracellular vesicles. Nat Rev Immunol 2014; 14: 195–208.10.1038/nri3622Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
114. Sahoo S, Losordo DW. Exosomes and cardiac repair after myocardial infarction. Circ Res 2014; 114: 333–44.10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.300639Search in Google Scholar PubMed
115. Sehgal A, Chen Q, Gibbings D, Sah DW, Bumcrot D. Tissue-specific gene silencing monitored in circulating RNA. RNA 2014; 20: 143–9.10.1261/rna.042507.113Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
116. Tetta C, Ghigo E, Silengo L, Deregibus MC, Camussi G. Extracellular vesicles as an emerging mechanism of cell-to-cell communication. Endocrine 2013; 44: 11–19.10.1007/s12020-012-9839-0Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
117. Turturici G, Tinnirello R, Sconzo G, Geraci F. Extracellular membrane vesicles as a mechanism of cell-to-cell communication: advantages and disadvantages. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2014; 306: C621–3.10.1152/ajpcell.00228.2013Search in Google Scholar PubMed
118. Ung TH, Madsen HJ, Hellwinkel JE, Lencioni AM, Graner MW. Exosome proteomics reveals transcriptional regulator proteins with potential to mediate downstream pathways. Cancer Sci 2014; 105: 1384–92.10.1111/cas.12534Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
119. van der Pol E, Böing AN, Harrison P, Sturk A, Nieuwland R. Classification, functions, and clinical relevance of extracellular vesicles. Pharmacol Rev 2012; 64: 676–705.10.1124/pr.112.005983Search in Google Scholar PubMed
120. Yoon YJ, Kim OY, Gho YS. Extracellular vesicles as emerging intercellular communicasomes. BMB Rep 2014; 47: 531–9.10.5483/BMBRep.2014.47.10.164Search in Google Scholar
121. Zhang B, Yin Y, Lai RC, Tan SS, Choo AB, Lim SK. Mesenchymal stem cells secrete immunologically active exosomes. Stem Cells Dev 2014; 23: 1233–44.10.1089/scd.2013.0479Search in Google Scholar PubMed
122. Zhang HG, Grizzle WE. Exosomes: a novel pathway of local and distant intercellular communication that facilitates the growth and metastasis of neoplastic lesions. Am J Pathol 2014; 184: 28–41.10.1016/j.ajpath.2013.09.027Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
123. Ambruosi B, Lacalandra GM, Iorga AI, De Santis T, Mugnier S, Matarrese R, Goudet G, Dell’aquila ME. Cytoplasmic lipid droplets and mitochondrial distribution in equine oocytes: implications on oocyte maturation, fertilization and developmental competence after ICSI. Theriogenology 2009; 71: 1093–104.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.12.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
124. Castillo J, Amaral A, Oliva R. Sperm nuclear proteome and its epigenetic potential. Andrology 2013; 2:326–38.10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00170.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
125. Fischer A. Epigenetic memory: the Lamarckian brain. EMBO J 2014; 33: 945–67.10.1002/embj.201387637Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
126. Govindaraju A, Dogan S, Rodriguez-Osorio N, Grant K, Kaya A, Memili E. Delivering value from sperm proteomics for fertility. Cell Tissue Res 2012; 349: 783–93.10.1007/s00441-012-1452-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed
127. Hosken DJ, Hodgson DJ. Why do sperm carry RNA? Relatedness, conflict, and control. Trends Ecol Evol 2014; 29: 451–5.10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed
128. Jodar M, Selvaraju S, Sendler E, Diamond MP, Krawetz SA. Reproductive Medicine Network. The presence, role and clinical use of spermatozoal RNAs. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19: 604–24.10.1093/humupd/dmt031Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
129. Kawano N, Yoshida K, Miyado K, Yoshida M. Lipid rafts: keys to sperm maturation, fertilization, and early embryogenesis. J Lipids 2011; 2011: 264706. doi: 10.1155/2011/264706.10.1155/2011/264706Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
130. Kawano M, Kawaji H, Grandjean V, Kiani J, Rassoulzadegan M. Novel small noncoding RNAs in mouse spermatozoa, zygotes and early embryos. PLoS One 2012; 7: e44542.10.1371/journal.pone.0044542Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
131. Keber R, Rozman D, Horvat S. Sterols in spermatogenesis and sperm maturation. J Lipid Res 2013; 54: 20–33.10.1194/jlr.R032326Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
132. Liu WM, Pang RT, Chiu PC, Wong BP, Lao K, Lee KF, Yeung WS. Sperm-borne microRNA-34c is required for the first cleavage division in mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 490–4.10.1073/pnas.1110368109Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
133. Rassoulzadegan M, Grandjean V, Gounon P, Vincent S, Gillot I, Cuzin F. RNA-mediated non-mendelian inheritance of an epigenetic change in the mouse. Nature 2006; 441: 469–74.10.1038/nature04674Search in Google Scholar PubMed
134. Sendler E, Johnson GD, Mao S, Goodrich RJ, Diamond MP, Hauser R, Krawetz SA. Stability, delivery and functions of human sperm RNAs at fertilization. Nucleic Acids Res 2013; 41: 4104–17.10.1093/nar/gkt132Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
135. Wagner KD, Wagner N, Ghanbarian H, Grandjean V, Gounon P, Cuzin F, Rassoulzadegan M. RNA induction and inheritance of epigenetic cardiac hypertrophy in the mouse. Dev Cell 2008; 14: 962–9.10.1016/j.devcel.2008.03.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed
136. Holman L, Price TA. Even more functions of sperm RNA: a response to Hosken and Hodgson. Trends Ecol Evol 2014; 29: 648–9.10.1016/j.tree.2014.09.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed
137. Mittelbrunn M, Gutiérrez-Vázquez C, Villarroya-Beltri C, González S, Sánchez-Cabo F, González MÁ, Bernad A, Sánchez-Madrid F. Unidirectional transfer of microRNA-loaded exosomes from T cells to antigen-presenting cells. Nat Commun 2011; 2: 282.10.1038/ncomms1285Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
138. Valadi H, Ekström K, Bossios A, Sjöstrand M, Lee JJ, Lötvall JO. Exosome-mediated transfer of mRNAs and microRNAs is a novel mechanism of genetic exchange between cells. Nat Cell Biol 2007; 9: 654–9.10.1038/ncb1596Search in Google Scholar PubMed
139. Hughes V. Sperm RNA carries marks of trauma. Nature 2014; 508: 296–7.10.1038/508296aSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
140. Sullivan R, Saez F, Girouard J, Frenette G. Role of exosomes in sperm maturation during the transit along the male reproductive tract. Blood Cells Mol Dis 2005; 35: 1–10.10.1016/j.bcmd.2005.03.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
141. Hossain MM, Sohel MM, Schellander K, Tesfaye D. Characterization and importance of microRNAs in mammalian gonadal functions. Cell Tissue Res 2012; 349: 679–90.10.1007/s00441-012-1469-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed
142. Miranda RC. MicroRNAs and ethanol toxicity. Int Rev Neurobiol 2014; 115: 245–84.10.1016/B978-0-12-801311-3.00007-XSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
143. Yao B, La LB, Chen YC, Chang LJ, Chan EK. Defining a new role of GW182 in maintaining miRNA stability. EMBO Rep 2012; 13: 1102–8.10.1038/embor.2012.160Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
144. Li J, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Dai X, Li W, Cai X, Yin Y, Wang Q, Xue Y, Wang C, Li D, Hou D, Jiang X, Zhang J, Zen K, Chen X, Zhang CY. Microvesicle-mediated transfer of microRNA-150 from monocytes to endothelial cells promotes angiogenesis. J Biol Chem 2013; 288: 23586–96.10.1074/jbc.M113.489302Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
145. Xin H, Li Y, Liu Z, Wang X, Shang X, Cui Y, Zhang ZG, Chopp M. MiR-133b promotes neural plasticity and functional recovery after treatment of stroke with multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells in rats via transfer of exosome-enriched extracellular particles. Stem Cells 2013; 31: 2737–46.10.1002/stem.1409Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
146. Valencia K, Luis-Ravelo D, Bovy N, Antón I, Martínez-Canarias S, Zandueta C, Ormazábal C, Struman I, Tabruyn S, Rebmann V, De Las Rivas J, Guruceaga E, Bandrés E, Lecanda F. miRNA cargo within exosome-like vesicle transfer influences metastatic bone colonization. Mol Oncol 2014; 8: 689–703.10.1016/j.molonc.2014.01.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
147. Yu B, Kim HW, Gong M, Wang J, Millard RW, Wang Y, Ashraf M, Xu M. Exosomes secreted from GATA-4 overexpressing mesenchymal stem cells serve as a reservoir of anti-apoptotic microRNAs for cardioprotection. Int J Cardiol 2014; 182C: 349–60.10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.12.043Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
148. de Rivero Vaccari JP, Brand F 3rd, Adamczak S, Lee SW, Barcena JP, Wang MY, Bullock MR, Dietrich WD, Keane RW. Exosome-mediated inflammasome signaling after central nervous system injury. J Neurochem 2015; doi: 10.1111/jnc.13036.10.1111/jnc.13036Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
149. Cossetti C, Lugini L, Astrologo L, Saggio I, Fais S, Spadafora C. Soma-to-germline transmission of RNA in mice xenografted with human tumour cells: possible transport by exosomes. PLoS One 2014; 9: e101629.10.1371/journal.pone.0101629Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
150. McGraw S, Zhang JX, Farag M, Chan D, Caron M, Konermann C, Oakes CC, Mohan KN, Plass C, Pastinen T, Bourque G, Chaillet JR, Trasler JM. Transient DNMT1 suppression reveals hidden heritable marks in the genome. Nucleic Acids Res 2015; 43: 1485–97.10.1093/nar/gku1386Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
151. Migicovsky Z, Kovalchuk I. Epigenetic memory in mammals. Front Genet 2011; 2: 28.10.3389/fgene.2011.00028Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
152. Zhang H, Tian XJ, Mukhopadhyay A, Kim KS, Xing J. Statistical mechanics model for the dynamics of collective epigenetic histone modification. Phys Rev Lett 2014; 112: 068101.10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.068101Search in Google Scholar PubMed
153. Gill ME, Erkek S, Peters AH. Parental epigenetic control of embryogenesis: a balance between inheritance and reprogramming? Curr Opin Cell Biol 2012; 24: 387–96.10.1016/j.ceb.2012.03.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
154. Lesch BJ, Page DC. Poised chromatin in the mammalian germ line. Development 2014; 141: 3619–26.10.1242/dev.113027Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
155. Baubec T, Colombo DF, Wirbelauer C, Schmidt J, Burger L, Krebs AR, Akalin A, Schübeler D. Genomic profiling of DNA methyltransferases reveals a role for DNMT3B in genic methylation. Nature 2015; doi: 10.1038/nature14176.10.1038/nature14176Search in Google Scholar PubMed
156. Grandjean V, Gounon P, Wagner N, Martin L, Wagner KD, Bernex F, Cuzin F, Rassoulzadegan M. The miR-124-Sox9 paramutation: RNA-mediated epigenetic control of embryonic and adult growth. Development 2009; 136: 3647–55.10.1242/dev.041061Search in Google Scholar PubMed
157. Kiani J, Grandjean V, Liebers R, Tuorto F, Ghanbarian H, Lyko F, Cuzin F, Rassoulzadegan M. RNA-mediated epigenetic heredity requires the cytosine methyltransferase Dnmt2. PLoS Genet 2013; 9: e1003498.10.1371/journal.pgen.1003498Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
158. Evsikov AV, Graber JH, Brockman JM, Hampl A, Holbrook AE, Singh P, Eppig JJ, Solter D, Knowles BB. Cracking the egg: molecular dynamics and evolutionary aspects of the transition from the fully grown oocyte to embryo. Genes Dev 2006; 20: 2713–27.10.1101/gad.1471006Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
159. Hunter B, Hollister JD, Bomblies K. Epigenetic inheritance: what news for evolution? Curr Biol 2012; 22: R54–6.10.1016/j.cub.2011.11.054Search in Google Scholar PubMed
160. Jablonka E, Lamb MJ. Précis of evolution in four dimensions. Behav Brain Sci 2007; 30: 353–65.10.1017/S0140525X07002221Search in Google Scholar PubMed
161. Petronis A. Epigenetics as a unifying principle in the aetiology of complex traits and diseases. Nature 2010; 465: 721–7.10.1038/nature09230Search in Google Scholar PubMed
162. Pfennig DW, Servedio MR. The role of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in diversification and speciation. Non-Genet Inheritance 2013; 1: 17–26.Search in Google Scholar
163. Rando OJ, Verstrepen KJ. Timescales of genetic and epigenetic inheritance. Cell 2007; 128: 655–68.10.1016/j.cell.2007.01.023Search in Google Scholar PubMed
164. Richards EJ. Population epigenetics. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2008; 18: 221–6.10.1016/j.gde.2008.01.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed
165. Skinner MK. Role of epigenetics in developmental biology and transgenerational inheritance. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 2011; 93: 51–5.10.1002/bdrc.20199Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
166. Becker C, Hagmann J, Müller J, Koenig D, Stegle O, Borgwardt K, Weigel D. Spontaneous epigenetic variation in the Arabidopsis thaliana methylome. Nature 2011; 480: 245–9.10.1038/nature10555Search in Google Scholar PubMed
167. Eichten SR, Briskine R, Song J, Li Q, Swanson-Wagner R, Hermanson PJ, Waters AJ, Starr E, West PT, Tiffin P, Myers CL, Vaughn MW, Springer NM. Epigenetic and genetic influences on DNA methylation variation in maize populations. Plant Cell 2013; 25: 2783–97.10.1105/tpc.113.114793Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
168. Johannes F, Porcher E, Teixeira FK, Saliba-Colombani V, Simon M, Agier N, Bulski A, Albuisson J, Heredia F, Audigier P, Bouchez D, Dillmann C, Guerche P, Hospital F, Colot V. Assessing the impact of transgenerational epigenetic variation on complex traits. PLoS Genet 2009; 5: e1000530.10.1371/journal.pgen.1000530Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
169. Lauria M, Piccinini S, Pirona R, Lund G, Viotti A, Motto M. Epigenetic variation, inheritance, and parent-of-origin effects of cytosine methylation in maize (Zea mays). Genetics 2014; 196: 653–66.10.1534/genetics.113.160515Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
170. Li Q, Eichten SR, Hermanson PJ, Springer NM. Inheritance patterns and stability of DNA methylation variation in maize near-isogenic lines. Genetics 2014; 196: 667–76.10.1534/genetics.113.158980Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
171. Molaro A, Hodges E, Fang F, Song Q, McCombie WR, Hannon GJ, Smith AD. Sperm methylation profiles reveal features of epigenetic inheritance and evolution in primates. Cell 2011; 146: 1029–41.10.1016/j.cell.2011.08.016Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
172. Schmitz RJ, Schultz MD, Lewsey MG, O’Malley RC, Urich MA, Libiger O, Schork NJ, Ecker JR. Transgenerational epigenetic instability is a source of novel methylation variants. Science 2011; 334: 369–73.10.1126/science.1212959Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
173. Schmitz RJ, Schultz MD, Urich MA, Nery JR, Pelizzola M, Libiger O, Alix A, McCosh RB, Chen H, Schork NJ, Ecker JR. Patterns of population epigenomic diversity. Nature 2013; 495: 193–8.10.1038/nature11968Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
174. Schmitz RJ, He Y, Valdés-López O, Khan SM, Joshi T, Urich MA, Nery JR, Diers B, Xu D, Stacey G, Ecker JR. Epigenome-wide inheritance of cytosine methylation variants in a recombinant inbred population. Genome Res 2013; 23: 1663–74.10.1101/gr.152538.112Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
175. Skinner MK, Guerrero-Bosagna C. Role of CpG deserts in the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of differential DNA methylation regions. BMC Genomics 2014; 15: 692.10.1186/1471-2164-15-692Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
176. Skinner MK, Savenkova MI, Zhang B, Gore AC, Crews D. Gene bionetworks involved in the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of altered mate preference: environmental epigenetics and evolutionary biology. BMC Genomics 2014; 15: 377.10.1186/1471-2164-15-377Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
177. Eichten S, Borevitz J. Epigenomics: methylation’s mark on inheritance. Nature 2013; 495: 181–2.10.1038/nature11960Search in Google Scholar PubMed
178. Cooper DN, Mort M, Stenson PD, Ball EV, Chuzhanova NA. Methylation-mediated deamination of 5-methylcytosine appears to give rise to mutations causing human inherited disease in CpNpG trinucleotides, as well as in CpG dinucleotides. Hum Genomics 2010; 4: 406–10.10.1186/1479-7364-4-6-406Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
179. Chahwan R, Wontakal SN, Roa S. Crosstalk between genetic and epigenetic information through cytosine deamination. Trends Genet 2010; 26: 443–8.10.1016/j.tig.2010.07.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
180. Asano M, Basieva I, Khrennikov A, Ohya M, Tanaka Y, Yamato I. A model of epigenetic evolution based on theory of open quantum systems. Syst Synth Biol 2013; 7: 161–73.10.1007/s11693-013-9109-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
181. Becker C, Weigel D. Epigenetic variation: origin and transgenerational inheritance. Curr Opin Plant Biol 2012; 15: 562–7.10.1016/j.pbi.2012.08.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
182. Day T, Bonduriansky R. A unified approach to the evolutionary consequences of genetic and nongenetic inheritance. Am Nat 2011; 178: E18–36.10.1086/660911Search in Google Scholar PubMed
183. English S, Pen I, Shea N, Uller T. The information value of non-genetic inheritance in plants and animals. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0116996.10.1371/journal.pone.0116996Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
184. Geoghegan JL, Spencer HG. The evolutionary potential of paramutation: a population-epigenetic model. Theor Popul Biol 2013; 88: 9–19.10.1016/j.tpb.2013.05.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
185. Giuliani C, Bacalini MG, Sazzini M, Pirazzini C, Franceschi C, Garagnani P, Luiselli D. The epigenetic side of human adaptation: hypotheses, evidences and theories. Ann Hum Biol 2015; 42: 1–9.10.3109/03014460.2014.961960Search in Google Scholar PubMed
186. Hirsch S, Baumberger R, Grossniklaus U. Epigenetic variation, inheritance, and selection in plant populations. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 2012; 77: 97–104.10.1101/sqb.2013.77.014605Search in Google Scholar PubMed
187. Lewis AJ. A call for an expanded synthesis of developmental and evolutionary paradigms. Behav Brain Sci 2012; 35: 368–9.10.1017/S0140525X12001021Search in Google Scholar PubMed
188. Rivoire O, Leibler S. A model for the generation and transmission of variations in evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014; 111: E1940–9.10.1073/pnas.1323901111Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
189. Shea N, Pen I, Uller T. Three epigenetic information channels and their different roles in evolution. J Evol Biol 2011; 24: 1178–87.10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02235.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
190. Wang Z, Wang Z, Wang J, Sui Y, Zhang J, Liao D, Wu R. A quantitative genetic and epigenetic model of complex traits. BMC Bioinform 2012; 13: 274.10.1186/1471-2105-13-274Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
191. Danchin É, Charmantier A, Champagne FA, Mesoudi A, Pujol B, Blanchet S. Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution. Nat Rev Genet 2011; 12: 475–86.10.1038/nrg3028Search in Google Scholar PubMed
192. Pigliucci M. Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Evolution 2007; 61: 2743–9.10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00246.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
193. Stotz K. Extended evolutionary psychology: the importance of transgenerational developmental plasticity. Front Psychol 2014; 5: 908.10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00908Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
194. Morris KV. The theory of RNA-mediated gene evolution. Epigenetics 2015; 10: 1–5.10.1080/15592294.2014.995536Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
195. Sharma A. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance requires a much deeper analysis. Trends Mol Med, 2015; doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2015.02.010.10.1016/j.molmed.2015.02.010Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2015 by De Gruyter
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Reviews
- Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: resolving uncertainty and evolving biology
- Longevity: epigenetic and biomolecular aspects
- Stepping inside the realm of epigenetic modifiers
- Numb family proteins: novel players in cardiac morphogenesis and cardiac progenitor cell differentiation
- Short Conceptual Overviews
- Suggested roles for microRNA in tumors
- The TATA-box motif and its impact on transcriptional gene regulation by miRNAs
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Reviews
- Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: resolving uncertainty and evolving biology
- Longevity: epigenetic and biomolecular aspects
- Stepping inside the realm of epigenetic modifiers
- Numb family proteins: novel players in cardiac morphogenesis and cardiac progenitor cell differentiation
- Short Conceptual Overviews
- Suggested roles for microRNA in tumors
- The TATA-box motif and its impact on transcriptional gene regulation by miRNAs