Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior
Authors: Frances A Champagne
Sergiy Dymov
Michael J Meaney
Shakti Sharma
Moshe Szyf
Ian C G Weaver
Jonathan R Seckl
Nadia Cervoni
Ana C D&#x27;Alessio
Journal: Nature Neuroscience (2004)
Discipline: NEUROSCIENCE & BEHAVIOR
Keywords: pup licking and grooming; arched-back nursing; epigenome; glucocorticoid receptor gene; hippocampus
Affiliations: Douglas Hospital Research Center, 6875 LaSalle Blvd., Montréal, Québec H4H 1R3, Canada.

Abstract:  Here we report that increased pup licking and grooming (LG) and arched-back nursing (ABN) by rat mothers altered the offspring epigenome at a glucocorticoid receptor (GR) gene promoter in the hippocampus. Offspring of mothers that showed high levels of LG and ABN were found to have differences in DNA methylation, as compared to offspring of 'low-LG-ABN' mothers. These differences emerged over the first week of life, were reversed with cross-fostering, persisted into adulthood and were associated with altered histone acetylation and transcription factor (NGFI-A) binding to the GR promoter. Central infusion of a histone deacetylase inhibitor removed the group differences in histone acetylation, DNA methylation, NGFI-A binding, GR expression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) responses to stress, suggesting a causal relation among epigenomic state, GR expression and the maternal effect on stress responses in the offspring. Thus we show that an epigenomic state of a gene can be established through behavioral programming, and it is potentially reversible. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
null, 
null, 
null, 
 There may be other issues with this paper. Background spots on some westerns are the same as background spots on other westerns published by the same group in another publication. That is not necessarily a problem as this can arise if the blots were scanned, and the scanner had spots. But the fact that the background spots in each case align perfectly with the banding patterns on both sets of westerns is something I cannot easily explain. See attached:![file] , 
 I agree with the comment in #4. To expand on what was posted above, some lanes in Figure 3A of this paper appear to be visible multiple times within the same blot, as well as to look similar to lanes in Figure 2 of Weaver et al., The Journal of Neuroscience, November 23, 2005 u2022 25(47):11045u201311054, doi: 10.1523 jneurosci.3652-05.2005 , https: pubpeer.com publications 313D560D1DB52D930B3FD9E6C66D17 Here is an illustration of these concerns. * Blue boxes: In the top blot, the same pair of lanes appears to be visible twice. * Pink and green boxes: These pairs of lanes look similar to lanes in Figure 2 of the J Neurosci 2005 paper where they are shown in a different order and represent different experiments * Red boxes: The b-actin panel looks similar to the b-actin panel in Figure 2 of the J Neurosci 2005 paper where the lanes represent different experiments * Cyan boxes: This pair of lanes appears to be visible twice, albeit with or without a black dot. It also looks similar to lanes in Figure 2 of the J Neurosci 2005 paper where it represents different experiments * Orange boxes: This pair of lanes looks similar to lanes in Figure 2 of the J Neurosci 2005 paper where it represents different experiments and might be visible twice * Brown boxes: The ER-a panel looks similar to the ER-a panel in Figure 2 of the J Neurosci 2005 paper where the lanes represent different experiments ![file] , 
 #2 Cited 6523 times according to Google Scholar. , 
 There is a systematic review of both rodent and human studies published in Biological Psychiatry (Turecki and Meaney) that describes all replications using the GR promoter , 
 #7 Thank you for responding. To be clear, are you in agreement with the concern that some images from this paper have been reused across multiple papers, but believe that because the results have been reproduced elsewhere the image reuse is OK? ,