It has now been more than a half-century since Roy Hertz in 1958 first proposed the notion that certain chemicals, particularly those used in livestock feed at the time, could contaminate food sources and bioaccumulate in humans mimicking the activity of hormones (Gassner et al., 1958). As the number of potential chemicals that could exert these effects has grown, so too has the interest in this area to the point that this is now a major topic of active research. The dangers of many endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) studied to date have largely been investigated utilizing animal models. A primary example is the multi-phased Toxicant Exposures and Responses by Genomic and Epigenomic Regulators of Transcription (TaRGET) program established to determine the contribution of environmental exposures to disease pathogenesis as a function of epigenome perturbation in mouse models (Wang et al., 2018). While the use of animal models has been quite informative for determining the various systemic or organ/tissue-specific disease-related effects associated with exposure to different EDCs, the molecular mechanisms underlying these phenomena remain poorly understood. Thus, questions persist regarding (i) the mechanisms by which exposure of cells to EDCs results in the initial formation of epimutations defined here as any change in epigenomic programming, (ii) potential cell-type specific differential susceptibility to epimutagenesis induced by different EDCs, (iii) the potential involvement of relevant hormone receptors and/or genomic hormone response elements in EDC-induced disruption of the epigenome, and (iv) the ability of an EDC-induced epimutated state to persist inter- or transgenerationally despite generational epigenetic reprogramming (Diaz-Castillo et al., 2019).

Questions about molecular mechanisms responsible for EDC-exposure based disruption of normal epigenetic programming have been difficult to interpret in whole animal models due, in part, to the inherent complexity of the intact animal including potential interactions among multiple different organs, tissues, and cell types at the paracrine, metabolic and/or systemic levels. To circumvent this challenge, we opted to expose homogeneous populations of specific cell types in culture to doses of the EDC, Bisphenol S (BPS), that are below the maximum safe limit previously set by the EPA for exposure of humans to the similar estrogen mimetic, Bisphenol A (BPA). In this way, we hoped to learn more about the manner in which direct exposure to a specific EDC induces epimutations and differential gene expression in different individual cell types including somatic cells, pluripotent cells, and germ cells. This approach was designed to distinguish the direct effects of an EDC exposure in vitro from indirect effects that may accrue as the result of an EDC exposure on one cell type inducing a secondary effect on a neighboring or related cell type in vivo.

Previous in vitro studies have demonstrated direct susceptibility of cultured cell types to EDC-induced epimutagenesis, however, those studies were focused on immortalized cancer cell lines that do not necessarily model key cell types involved in normal initial incursion or subsequent intragenerational propagation or inter- or transgenerational transmission of environmentally induced epimutations in vivo (Deb et al., 2016; Goodman et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2019; Karaman and Ozden, 2019; Senyildiz et al., 2017). We chose to examine direct exposure of three key types of cells relevant to environmental exposures and subsequent propagation and transmission of induced epimutations in vivo – somatic cell types known to be responsive to endocrine signaling (Sertoli cells and granulosa cells), pluripotent cells mimicking the preimplantation embryo (iPSCs), and germline cells (PGCLCs).

While there have been reports that have clearly indicated the ability of EDCs to disrupt classical endocrine signaling (Henley and Korach, 2010; Kelce et al., 1995; Swedenborg et al., 2009; vom Saal and Hughes, 2005; You et al., 1998), there exist other reports indicating EDCs can also disrupt non-classical endocrine signaling via nuclear receptors (Ozgyin et al., 2015; Myers et al., 2011), G protein-coupled receptors (Thomas and Dong, 2006), and calcium channel signaling (Brenker et al., 2018). This has further complicated our understanding of the mechanism(s) by which EDC exposure initially induces epimutations, and has particularly confounded insight into the susceptibility of germ cells to EDC-induced epimutagenesis given that germ cells are reported to lack expression of classical endocrine receptors (Meccariello et al., 2014). This is relevant to the effort to understand mechanisms underlying transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of EDC-induced epimutations (Anway et al., 2006; Guerrero-Bosagna et al., 2012; Nilsson et al., 2008) which clearly implicates transmission via the germ line.

The concept of germline transmission of EDC-induced epimutations is further confounded by the known epigenetic reprogramming events that occur in the preimplantation embryo and developing fetal and neonatal germ line. Thus, regardless of how EDC-induced epimutations become initially manifest in the germ line, it is not clear how they subsequently persist and are transmitted inter- or transgenerationally given the large portion of the epigenome that undergoes genome-wide erasure and resetting of epigenetic programming during each generation (Cantone and Fisher, 2013; Lee et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2002; Sanz et al., 2010). In vitro cell culture systems afford the opportunity to focus on individual cell types independently, including somatic cells which are likely initially exposed to most environmental disruptive influences, pluripotent cells which represent the preimplantation embryo in which the first major reprogramming event occurs during normal development, and early germline cells where the second major reprogramming event is initiated in primordial germ cells (PGCs). Importantly, in addition to the potential to study each of these cell types independently, it is possible to induce transitions in cell fate in vitro that model those that occur during normal development, thereby recapitulating normal reprogramming events in a way that can facilitate high resolution studies of the fate of EDC-induced epimutations once they have been induced in any of these cell types.

Here we describe our study of the relative susceptibility to induction of epimutations by direct exposure of four different cell types maintained in culture – somatic Sertoli and granulosa cells, pluripotent iPSCs, and germline PGCLCs – to BPS, followed by our analysis of the fate of epimutations initially induced in mouse iPSCs that are then induced to transition into PGCLCs. We found that there are cell-type specific differences in susceptibility to epimutagenesis and associated dysregulation of gene expression patterns following exposure of these different cell types to a similar dose of BPS below the maximum safe limit established by the EPA for exposure of human cells to BPA (Ribeiro et al., 2019). We further found that BPS induction of epimutations in both pluripotent and somatic cell types that express relevant estrogen receptors (ERs), as well as in germ cells which do not express ERs, suggests disruption of both canonical and non-canonical endocrine signaling. Most interestingly, we found that when iPSCs exposed to BPS were then induced to undergo a major transition in cell fate and related epigenetic reprogramming to form PGCLCs, a similar prevalence of epimutations and DEGs was retained, but, surprisingly, very few (<10%) specific epimutations or DEGs were conserved during this process. This suggests that the initial EDC exposure induces disruption of the chromatin landscape that subsequent epigenetic reprogramming is unable to fully restore. Thus, reprogramming during a major cell fate transition appears to correct many of the initially induced epimutations, but also appears to induce many de novo epimutations, and this imbalance may persist across multiple generations which may contribute to continued transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of EDC-induced phenotypes during succeeding generations.

While nearly 20 years of research on the effects of exposure of live animals to various EDCs and other environmental disruptive influences has clearly established the potential to perturb the epigenome in ways that can dysregulate normal gene expression patterns and predispose the development of disease states, the molecular mechanisms underlying these phenomena have remained largely undefined. Thus, the manner in which environmental exposures introduce biochemical changes in epigenetic programming, how such disruptions can be propagated within a tissue or throughout the soma of an exposed individual or enter that individual’s germ line, or how these disruptions predispose disease states in that individual, or how a resulting prevalence of epimutations can be transmitted to multiple subsequent generations despite generational epigenetic reprogramming, are all mechanistic questions that have remained unanswered despite more than 5000 publications on this topic since the early 2000s. The vast majority of those publications have described experiments in animal models – typically rodents. While informative, such live animal studies require months to years to complete, are cost-, labor-, and animal-intensive, and have not yielded substantial insight into the molecular mechanisms underlying the deleterious effects of environmentally induced epimutations.

In vitro model systems have proven to be very useful tools for deciphering molecular mechanisms related to normal development and homeostasis, or disruptions of those processes predisposing onset of disease. Examples include cell culture systems used to study developmental processes such as X-chromosome inactivation in mammals (Almeida et al., 2017; Patrat et al., 2009) or early embryogenesis (Bao et al., 2022; Lau et al., 2022), or to elucidate the cellular and molecular etiology of many different diseases based on the now popular ‘disease-in-a-dish’ approach (Davaapil et al., 2020; Song et al., 2023). While in vitro cell culture systems are, by nature, devoid of a majority of the physiological complexities present within the intact organism in vivo, this provides an actual advantage in that it facilitates deconvolution of those complexities while unequivocally focusing on only certain, specific aspects or cell types. However, this ultimately warrants validation of results discerned from studies of in vitro models to ensure they also reflect functions ongoing in the more complex and heterogeneous environment of the intact animal in vivo.

We assembled an in vitro system in which we combined the three cell types normally involved in (i) the initial exposure to disruptive environmental effects (somatic cells), (ii) the first phase of generational epigenetic reprogramming in the preimplantation embryo (pluripotent cells), and (iii) the second phase of generational reprogramming in the developing germ line (germ cells). This system allowed us to gain insights into multiple mechanistic aspects of environmentally induced epimutagenesis including the initial induction of epimutations by exposure of cells to the EDC, BPS, cell-type specific differences in susceptibility to BPS-induced epimutagenesis, factors that appear to contribute to that differential susceptibility, and the mechanism by which an epimutated state may persist across multiple generations despite generational reprogramming.

Here we have shown that exposure of homogeneous populations of cells maintained in culture to an EDC such as BPS can induce epimutagenesis and dysregulation of gene expression, and that this occurs in a partially additive dose-dependent manner, although the quantitative effect appears to plateau at higher doses. This afforded us the opportunity to test the relative effects of direct exposure of different specific cell types to a similar dose of BPS with no confounding effects imposed by interactions with other cell types or systemic effects of the sort that normally occur in the in vivo context. We found that somatic, pluripotent, and germ cell types do indeed show differences in direct susceptibility to induction of epimutations following exposure to BPS, both in terms of the quantity of epimutations induced and qualities of the resulting epimutations such as a predominance of hyper- versus hypomethylation, and the genomic locations where such epimutations tend to occur. Our results suggest that these differences reflect distinctions in the normal status of each cell type at the time of exposure. Thus, somatic, pluripotent, and germ cell types differ in the normal status of genome-wide patterns of accessible versus inaccessible chromatin, global DNA methylation, and expression of relevant endocrine receptors. Interestingly, our data suggest that all of these parameters can influence cell-type specific susceptibility to induction of epimutations by exposure to BPS, and that different combinations of these variables ultimately determine the quantity and quality of epimutations induced by exposure to BPS. We note that while our exposure dose of 1 µM of BPS was below that deemed safe by the EPA for exposure of humans to the similar EDC, BPA, that same dose may exert greater effects when used to expose cells in culture in the absence of any sort of mitigating metabolic effects that may accrue in intact animals or humans. Indeed, the potential to quantify the epimutagenic effects of different doses of an EDC on different cell types as shown in our study could be used in future studies to assess the relative effects of a specific dose of an EDC on a specific cell type when that cell type is exposed either in a homogeneous culture or within an intact animal.

Endogenous fetal germline cells (e.g. PGCs and prospermatogonia in males) normally display lower levels of global DNA methylation and higher levels of chromatin accessibility than pluripotent or somatic cell types (Hajkova, 2011), yet PGCLCs developed fewer epimutations following exposure to BPS than the other cell types. This appears to be explained by the fact that germline cells do not express either estrogen receptor, whereas pluripotent and somatic cell types express one or both of the two estrogen receptors, apparently rendering them more susceptible to induction of epimutations following exposure to the estrogen mimetic, BPS. This is consistent with the notion that EDCs impose disruptive effects by interfering with canonical endocrine signaling pathways, and that notion is further supported by our observation that, in the cell types that express one or both estrogen receptors, we observed a prevalence of BPS-induced epimutations in genomic regions containing nearby EREs, whereas in PGCLCs, which do not express either estrogen receptor, we did not observe a strong correlation between the locations of BPS-induced epimutations and genomic EREs.

Nevertheless, we did observe induction of epimutations in PGCLCs exposed to BPS, suggesting that while cell types expressing relevant endocrine receptors may display elevated susceptibility to EDC-induced epimutagenesis presumably based on disruption of canonical endocrine signaling, this is not the only mechanism by which EDCs can induce epimutations. Indeed, our results support the suggestion that there may be at least two types of epimutations induced by exposure to EDCs – one that is independent of canonical endocrine signaling and so occurs in all cell types regardless of expression of relevant endocrine receptors or the genomic location of relevant HREs, and another that does involve disruption of canonical endocrine signaling and so is elevated in cell types expressing relevant endocrine receptors and predisposes the induction of epimutations in genomic regions near relevant HREs. Beyond this, a comparison of the quantities of BPS-induced epimutations in pluripotent and somatic cell types, which both express one or both estrogen receptors, but which differ with respect to elevated genome-wide chromatin accessibility in pluripotent cells compared to much more limited chromatin accessibility in somatic cell types (Cantone and Fisher, 2013; Santos et al., 2002), suggests that chromatin accessibility also contributes to susceptibility to EDC-induced epimutagenesis.

One of our most intriguing findings was that, in addition to estrogen-receptor expressing somatic and pluripotent cell types developing more epimutations than non-estrogen-receptor expressing germ cells in response to exposure to BPS, the occurrence of epimutations in the former (somatic and pluripotent) cell types was predominantly in enhancer regions whereas that in the latter (germ) cell type was predominantly in gene promoters. As noted above, there was a significant increase in the occurrence of BPS-induced epimutations near EREs in somatic and pluripotent cell types compared to germ cells. A genome-wide analysis confirmed that ERE half-sites occur more frequently in enhancer regions than in promoter regions (Table 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 4) supporting our suggestion that the higher prevalence of BPS-induced epimutations we observed in enhancer regions in somatic and pluripotent cell types was due to disruption of canonical hormone signaling.

Our finding that PGCLCs, which do not express endocrine receptors, still accrued epimutations following exposure to BPS indicates that in addition to inducing epimutations by disrupting canonical endocrine signaling pathways, exposure to EDCs can induce epimutations via mechanisms that do not involve disruption of such pathways. This notion is further supported by the occurrence of BPS-induced epimutations in genomic regions that do not include nearby EREs, even though a prevalence of the epimutations induced in PGCLCs were located in gene promoters. Pathway analysis of the genes in which promoter-region epimutations were induced by exposure of PGCLCs to BPS suggests an apparent endocrine-signaling independent group of genes that can become disrupted by exposure to an EDC via non-canonical signaling which may occur through the PI3K/AKT pathway via G-protein-coupled receptors. While we observed expression of a number of G-protein-coupled receptors known to bind to either 17β-estradiol or BPA, further studies will be required to determine if any of these contribute to susceptibility to BPS epimutagenesis.

As expected, disruption of normal epigenetic programming induced by exposure of cells to BPS also led to dysregulation of gene expression. Thus, RNA-seq analysis detected differentially expressed genes in all cell types exposed to BPS. Surprisingly, the greatest number of DEGs was detected in PGCLCs which was the cell type that developed the lowest overall number of epimutations in response to exposure to BPS. However, PGCLCs showed a higher prevalence of BPS-induced epimutations in gene promoter regions than was observed in any of the other cell types, so it appears that promoter-region epimutations impose the most direct impact on gene expression. As noted above, fetal germ cells normally display the lowest level of global DNA methylation of any cell type at any developmental stage. This is characteristic of the epigenetic ground state that accrues uniquely in developing germ cells (Hajkova, 2011), and is believed to reflect a generally more accessible chromatin state genome-wide in germ cells than in other cell types. Thus, it may be that the epigenetic ground state in developing germ cells renders this cell type uniquely susceptible to epimutagenesis in gene promoter regions, thereby predisposing a high level of dysregulation of gene expression in response to exposure to an EDC.

Finally, our in vitro system allowed us to follow the fate of BPS-induced epimutations through a major transition in cell fate from pluripotent to germline cells during which a portion of the normal generational germline epigenetic reprogramming process is known to occur (Kurimoto and Saitou, 2018). Thus, when we induced iPSCs previously exposed to 1 μM BPS to differentiate into PGCLCs, we found that a substantial prevalence of epimutations persisted during this transition. However, very few of the specific DMCs or the associated DEGs detected in the BPS-exposed iPSCs persisted in the subsequently derived PGCLCs. Specifically, only 3.7% of DMCs and 8.4% of DEGs were conserved between the BPS-exposed iPSCs and the subsequently derived PGCLCs. This suggests that exposure of cells to EDCs has the potential to disrupt epigenetic programming in a way that then interferes with subsequent generational reprogramming that normally accompanies either germline to pluripotent or pluripotent to germline transitions in cell fate. Recent in vivo studies have suggested that exposure of gestating female mice to the EDC tributyltin results in disruption not simply of the pattern of epigenetic modifications but also of the underlying chromatin landscape (Chamorro-García et al., 2021; Chang et al., 2022). In this context, our results are consistent with the suggestion that exposure of cells to EDCs can disrupt the underlying chromatin landscape (e.g. the pattern of A and B chromatin compartments) such that when the ‘normal’ reprogramming machinery then acts on this disrupted landscape it corrects many of the originally induced epimutations, but simultaneously induces many novel epimutations de novo. This would predispose ongoing abnormalities in the underlying chromatin landscape that would, in turn, lead to the recurring correction of many existing epimutations in concert with the genesis of many novel epimutations during each subsequent generation.

We note that, with the exception of our analysis of granulosa cells, all of our studies were carried out in ‘male’ XY-bearing cells. It remains possible that XX-bearing cells might differ from XY-bearing cells in the way(s) in which they respond to exposure to an EDC. However, the similarity we observed between responses of XX granulosa cells and XY Sertoli cells suggest this may not be the case – at least in cell types in which dosage compensation has been established by X-chromosome inactivation.

Taken together, our results demonstrate the utility of an in vitro cell culture approach for pursuing molecular mechanisms underlying environmentally induced disruption of normal epigenetic programming manifest as the formation of epimutations and dysregulated gene expression. This approach clearly affords unique potential to reveal mechanisms responsible for the initial induction of epimutations in response to direct exposure of cells to disruptive effects such as EDCs, as well as offering potential means to elucidate mechanisms by which environmentally induced epimutations are then propagated within the exposed individual and then to that individual’s descendants. Knowledge of these mechanisms will afford the best opportunity to understand how these defects may, in the future, be better diagnosed, treated, and/or prevented. With the ever-expanding catalog of potentially hazardous man-made compounds permeating our environment, it is increasingly important that we recognize the potential dangers such compounds may impose and maximize our ability to protect ourselves from those dangers.

Methylation beadchip, EM-seq, and RNA-seq data discussed in this publication have been uploaded and can be obtained from the SRA BioProject PRJNA1026145 and GEO accession GSE252723.

1. 1. Lehle JD
   2. Lin Y-H
   3. Gomez A
   4. Chavez L
   5. McCarrey JR

   (2024) NCBI BioProject

   ID PRJNA1026145. DNA methylation data.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA1026145
2. 1. Lehle JD
   2. Lin Y-H
   3. Gomez A
   4. Chavez L
   5. McCarrey JR

   (2024) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE252723. Gene expression data.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE252723

1. 1. Almeida M
   2. Pintacuda G
   3. Masui O
   4. Koseki Y
   5. Gdula M
   6. Cerase A
   7. Brown D
   8. Mould A
   9. Innocent C
   10. Nakayama M
   11. Schermelleh L
   12. Nesterova TB
   13. Koseki H
   14. Brockdorff N

   (2017) PCGF3/5-PRC1 initiates Polycomb recruitment in X chromosome inactivation

   Science 356:1081–1084.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal2512

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. Software

   1. Andrews S
   2. Krueger F
   3. Segonds-Pichon A
   4. Biggins L
   5. Krueger C
   6. Montgomery J

   (2023) Babraham bioinformatics - fastqc A quality control tool for high throughput sequence data

   Babraham Institute.

   https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/
3. 1. Anway MD
   2. Leathers C
   3. Skinner MK

   (2006) Endocrine disruptor vinclozolin induced epigenetic transgenerational adult-onset disease

   Endocrinology 147:5515–5523.

   https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2006-0640

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. Software

   1. Bache S
   2. Wickham H
   3. Henry L

   (2022) Magrittr: A forward-pipe operator for R, version 2.0.3

   Magrittr.

   https://magrittr.tidyverse.org
5. 1. Bao M
   2. Cornwall-Scoones J
   3. Sanchez-Vasquez E
   4. Cox AL
   5. Chen D-Y
   6. De Jonghe J
   7. Shadkhoo S
   8. Hollfelder F
   9. Thomson M
   10. Glover DM
   11. Zernicka-Goetz M

   (2022) Stem cell-derived synthetic embryos self-assemble by exploiting cadherin codes and cortical tension

   Nature Cell Biology 24:1341–1349.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-022-00984-y

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Beamish SB
   2. Frick KM

   (2022) A putative role for ubiquitin-proteasome signaling in estrogenic memory regulation

   Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 15:807215.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/FNBEH.2021.807215/BIBTEX

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bourdeau V
   2. Deschênes J
   3. Métivier R
   4. Nagai Y
   5. Nguyen D
   6. Bretschneider N
   7. Gannon F
   8. White JH
   9. Mader S

   (2004) Genome-wide identification of high-affinity estrogen response elements in human and mouse

   Molecular Endocrinology 18:1411–1427.

   https://doi.org/10.1210/me.2003-0441

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Brenker C
   2. Rehfeld A
   3. Schiffer C
   4. Kierzek M
   5. Kaupp UB
   6. Skakkebæk NE
   7. Strünker T

   (2018) Synergistic activation of CatSper Ca2+ channels in human sperm by oviductal ligands and endocrine disrupting chemicals

   Human Reproduction 33:1915–1923.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey275

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Burger L
   2. Gaidatzis D
   3. Schübeler D
   4. Stadler MB

   (2013) Identification of active regulatory regions from DNA methylation data

   Nucleic Acids Research 41:e155.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt599

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cantone I
    2. Fisher AG

    (2013) Epigenetic programming and reprogramming during development

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 20:282–289.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2489

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Carey BW
    2. Markoulaki S
    3. Beard C
    4. Hanna J
    5. Jaenisch R

    (2010) Single-gene transgenic mouse strains for reprogramming adult somatic cells

    Nature Methods 7:56–59.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1410

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chamorro-García R
    2. Poupin N
    3. Tremblay-Franco M
    4. Canlet C
    5. Egusquiza R
    6. Gautier R
    7. Jouanin I
    8. Shoucri BM
    9. Blumberg B
    10. Zalko D

    (2021) Transgenerational metabolomic fingerprints in mice ancestrally exposed to the obesogen TBT

    Environment International 157:106822.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106822

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. Preprint

    1. Chang RC
    2. Egusquiza RJ
    3. Huang Y
    4. Amato AA
    5. Joloya EM
    6. Wheeler HB
    7. Nguyen A
    8. Shioda K
    9. Odajima J
    10. Shioda T
    11. Blumberg B

    (2022) Heritable Changes in Chromatin Contacts Linked to Transgenerational Obesity

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.27.514145

    • Google Scholar
14. Software

    1. Chang W

    (2023) Shiny: web application framework for rshiny

    Shiny.

    https://shiny.posit.co/r/reference/shiny/1.4.0/shiny-package.html
15. 1. Chen Y
    2. Lun ATL
    3. Smyth GK
    4. Burden CJ
    5. Ryan DP
    6. Khang TF
    7. Lianoglou S

    (2016) From reads to genes to pathways: differential expression analysis of RNA-Seq experiments using Rsubread and the edgeR quasi-likelihood pipeline

    F1000Research 5:1438.

    https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8987.2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Davaapil H
    2. Shetty DK
    3. Sinha S

    (2020) Aortic “Disease-in-a-dish”: mechanistic insights and drug development using iPSC-based disease modeling

    Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 8:550504.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2020.550504

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Deb P
    2. Bhan A
    3. Hussain I
    4. Ansari KI
    5. Bobzean SA
    6. Pandita TK
    7. Perrotti LI
    8. Mandal SS

    (2016) Endocrine disrupting chemical, bisphenol-A, induces breast cancer associated gene HOXB9 expression in vitro and in vivo

    Gene 590:234–243.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2016.05.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. de Sena Brandine G
    2. Smith AD

    (2019) Falco: high-speed FastQC emulation for quality control of sequencing data

    F1000Research 8:1874.

    https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21142.2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Diaz-Castillo C
    2. Chamorro-Garcia R
    3. Shioda T
    4. Blumberg B

    (2019) Transgenerational self-reconstruction of disrupted chromatin organization after exposure to an environmental stressor in mice

    Scientific Reports 9:13057.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49440-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Ding W
    2. Kaur D
    3. Horvath S
    4. Zhou W

    (2023) Comparative epigenome analysis using Infinium DNA methylation BeadChips

    Briefings in Bioinformatics 24:bbac617.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac617

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dunham I
    2. Kundaje A

    (2012) An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome

    Nature 489:57–74.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11247

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Filardo EJ
    2. Quinn JA
    3. Frackelton AR
    4. Bland KI

    (2002) Estrogen action via the G protein-coupled receptor, GPR30: stimulation of adenylyl cyclase and cAMP-mediated attenuation of the epidermal growth factor receptor-to-MAPK signaling axis

    Molecular Endocrinology 16:70–84.

    https://doi.org/10.1210/mend.16.1.0758

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Gassner FX
    2. Reifenstein EC
    3. Algeo JW
    4. Mattox WE

    (1958)

    Effects of hormones on growth, fattening, and meat production potential of livestock

    Recent Progress in Hormone Research 14:183–210.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Goodman M
    2. Mandel JS
    3. DeSesso JM
    4. Scialli AR

    (2014) Atrazine and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review of epidemiologic evidence

    Birth Defects Research. Part B, Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology 101:215–236.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bdrb.21101

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Guerrero-Bosagna C
    2. Covert TR
    3. Haque MM
    4. Settles M
    5. Nilsson EE
    6. Anway MD
    7. Skinner MK

    (2012) Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of vinclozolin induced mouse adult onset disease and associated sperm epigenome biomarkers

    Reproductive Toxicology 34:694–707.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2012.09.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hajkova P

    (2011) Epigenetic reprogramming in the germline: towards the ground state of the epigenome

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 366:2266–2273.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0042

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Hansen KD
    2. Langmead B
    3. Irizarry RA

    (2012) BSmooth: from whole genome bisulfite sequencing reads to differentially methylated regions

    Genome Biology 13:R83.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2012-13-10-r83

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Hao Z
    2. Lv D
    3. Ge Y
    4. Shi J
    5. Weijers D
    6. Yu G
    7. Chen J

    (2020) RIdeogram: drawing SVG graphics to visualize and map genome-wide data on the idiograms

    PeerJ. Computer Science 6:e251.

    https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.251

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Hayashi K
    2. Ohta H
    3. Kurimoto K
    4. Aramaki S
    5. Saitou M

    (2011) Reconstitution of the mouse germ cell specification pathway in culture by pluripotent stem cells

    Cell 146:519–532.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.06.052

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Henley DV
    2. Korach KS

    (2010) Physiological effects and mechanisms of action of endocrine disrupting chemicals that alter estrogen signaling

    Hormones 9:191–205.

    https://doi.org/10.14310/horm.2002.1270

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Hochedlinger K
    2. Yamada Y
    3. Beard C
    4. Jaenisch R

    (2005) Ectopic expression of Oct-4 blocks progenitor-cell differentiation and causes dysplasia in epithelial tissues

    Cell 121:465–477.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.02.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Huang W
    2. Zhao C
    3. Zhong H
    4. Zhang S
    5. Xia Y
    6. Cai Z

    (2019) Bisphenol S induced epigenetic and transcriptional changes in human breast cancer cell line MCF-7

    Environmental Pollution 246:697–703.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.12.084

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Ishikura Y
    2. Yabuta Y
    3. Ohta H
    4. Hayashi K
    5. Nakamura T
    6. Okamoto I
    7. Yamamoto T
    8. Kurimoto K
    9. Shirane K
    10. Sasaki H
    11. Saitou M

    (2016) In vitro derivation and propagation of spermatogonial stem cell activity from mouse pluripotent stem cells

    Cell Reports 17:2789–2804.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.11.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Jühling F
    2. Kretzmer H
    3. Bernhart SH
    4. Otto C
    5. Stadler PF
    6. Hoffmann S

    (2016) metilene: fast and sensitive calling of differentially methylated regions from bisulfite sequencing data

    Genome Research 26:256–262.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.196394.115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kabir ER
    2. Rahman MS
    3. Rahman I

    (2015) A review on endocrine disruptors and their possible impacts on human health

    Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 40:241–258.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2015.06.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Karaman EF
    2. Ozden S

    (2019) Alterations in global DNA methylation and metabolism-related genes caused by zearalenone in MCF7 and MCF10F cells

    Mycotoxin Research 35:309–320.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12550-019-00358-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Karl AF
    2. Griswold MD

    (1990) Sertoli cells of the testis: preparation of cell cultures and effects of retinoids

    Methods in Enzymology 190:71–75.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(90)90010-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Kelce WR
    2. Stone CR
    3. Laws SC
    4. Gray LE
    5. Kemppainen JA
    6. Wilson EM

    (1995) Persistent DDT metabolite p,p’-DDE is a potent androgen receptor antagonist

    Nature 375:581–585.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/375581a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. King DJ
    2. Freimanis G
    3. Lasecka-Dykes L
    4. Asfor A
    5. Ribeca P
    6. Waters R
    7. King DP
    8. Laing E

    (2020) A systematic evaluation of high-throughput sequencing approaches to identify low-frequency single nucleotide variants in viral populations

    Viruses 12:1187.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/v12101187

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Kurimoto K
    2. Saitou M

    (2018) Epigenome regulation during germ cell specification and development from pluripotent stem cells

    Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 52:57–64.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2018.06.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Lau KYC
    2. Rubinstein H
    3. Gantner CW
    4. Hadas R
    5. Amadei G
    6. Stelzer Y
    7. Zernicka-Goetz M

    (2022) Mouse embryo model derived exclusively from embryonic stem cells undergoes neurulation and heart development

    Cell Stem Cell 29:1445–1458.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2022.08.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Lawrence M
    2. Gentleman R
    3. Carey V

    (2009) rtracklayer: an R package for interfacing with genome browsers

    Bioinformatics 25:1841–1842.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp328

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Lawrence M
    2. Huber W
    3. Pagès H
    4. Aboyoun P
    5. Carlson M
    6. Gentleman R
    7. Morgan MT
    8. Carey VJ

    (2013) Software for computing and annotating genomic ranges

    PLOS Computational Biology 9:e1003118.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003118

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Lee HJ
    2. Hore TA
    3. Reik W

    (2014) Reprogramming the methylome: erasing memory and creating diversity

    Cell Stem Cell 14:710–719.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.05.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Lee S
    2. Cook D
    3. Lawrence M

    (2019) plyranges: a grammar of genomic data transformation

    Genome Biology 20:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-018-1597-8

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Lehle JD
    2. McCarrey JR

    (2023) Accelerating the alignment processing speed of the comprehensive end-to-end whole-genome bisulfite sequencing pipeline, wg-blimp

    Biology Methods & Protocols 8:bpad012.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/biomethods/bpad012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Liao Y
    2. Smyth GK
    3. Shi W

    (2019) The R package Rsubread is easier, faster, cheaper and better for alignment and quantification of RNA sequencing reads

    Nucleic Acids Research 47:e47.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Mason CE
    2. Shu FJ
    3. Wang C
    4. Session RM
    5. Kallen RG
    6. Sidell N
    7. Yu T
    8. Liu MH
    9. Cheung E
    10. Kallen CB

    (2010) Location analysis for the estrogen receptor-alpha reveals binding to diverse ERE sequences and widespread binding within repetitive DNA elements

    Nucleic Acids Research 38:2355–2368.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp1188

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. McCarthy DJ
    2. Chen Y
    3. Smyth GK

    (2012) Differential expression analysis of multifactor RNA-Seq experiments with respect to biological variation

    Nucleic Acids Research 40:4288–4297.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks042

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Meccariello R
    2. Chianese R
    3. Chioccarelli T
    4. Ciaramella V
    5. Fasano S
    6. Pierantoni R
    7. Cobellis G

    (2014) Intra-testicular signals regulate germ cell progression and production of qualitatively mature spermatozoa in vertebrates

    Frontiers in Endocrinology 5:69.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2014.00069

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Merkel A
    2. Fernández-Callejo M
    3. Casals E
    4. Marco-Sola S
    5. Schuyler R
    6. Gut IG
    7. Heath SC

    (2019) gemBS: high throughput processing for DNA methylation data from bisulfite sequencing

    Bioinformatics 35:737–742.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty690

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Molina L
    2. Figueroa CD
    3. Bhoola KD
    4. Ehrenfeld P

    (2017) GPER-1/GPR30 a novel estrogen receptor sited in the cell membrane: therapeutic coupling to breast cancer

    Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets 21:755–766.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/14728222.2017.1350264

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Monti M
    2. Redi CA

    (2016) Isolation and characterization of mouse antral oocytes based on nucleolar chromatin organization

    Journal of Visualized Experiments 01:53616.

    https://doi.org/10.3791/53616

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. Software

    1. Morgan M
    2. Obenchain V
    3. Hester J
    4. Pagès H

    (2023) SummarizedExperiment container, version 1.20.0

    Rdrr.Io.

    https://rdrr.io/bioc/SummarizedExperiment/
55. 1. Myers RM
    2. Stamatoyannopoulos J
    3. Snyder M
    4. Dunham I
    5. Hardison RC
    6. Bernstein BE
    7. Gingeras TR
    8. Kent WJ
    9. Birney E
    10. Wold B
    11. Crawford GE
    12. Epstein CB
    13. Shoresh N
    14. Ernst J
    15. Mikkelsen TS
    16. Kheradpour P
    17. Zhang X
    18. Wang L
    19. Issner R
    20. Coyne MJ
    21. Durham T
    22. Ku M
    23. Truong T
    24. Ward LD
    25. Altshuler RC
    26. Lin MF
    27. Kellis M
    28. Davis CA
    29. Kapranov P
    30. Dobin A
    31. Zaleski C
    32. Schlesinger F
    33. Batut P
    34. Chakrabortty S
    35. Jha S
    36. Lin W
    37. Drenkow J
    38. Huaien W
    39. Bell K
    40. Bell I
    41. Gao H
    42. Dumais E
    43. Dumais J
    44. Antonarakis SE
    45. Ucla C
    46. Borel C
    47. Guigo R
    48. Djebali S
    49. Lagarde J
    50. Kingswood C
    51. Ribeca P
    52. Sammeth M
    53. Alioto T
    54. Merkel A
    55. Tilgner H
    56. Carninci P
    57. Hayashizaki Y
    58. Lassmann T
    59. Takahashi H
    60. Abdelhamid RF
    61. Hannon G
    62. Fejes KT
    63. Preall J
    64. Gordon A
    65. Sotirova V
    66. Reymond A
    67. Howald C
    68. Graison EAY
    69. Chrast J
    70. Ruan Y
    71. Ruan X
    72. Shahab A
    73. Poh WT
    74. Wei CL
    75. Furey TS
    76. Boyle AP
    77. Sheffield NC
    78. Song L
    79. Shibata Y
    80. Vales T
    81. Winter D
    82. Zhang Z
    83. London D
    84. Tianyuan W
    85. Keefe D
    86. Iyer VR
    87. Lee BK
    88. McDaniell RM
    89. Liu Z
    90. Battenhouse A
    91. Bhinge AA
    92. Lieb JD
    93. Grasfeder LL
    94. Showers KA
    95. Giresi PG
    96. Kim SKC
    97. Shestak C
    98. Pauli F
    99. Reddy TE
    100. Gertz J
    101. Partridge EC
    102. Jain P
    103. Sprouse RO
    104. Bansal A
    105. Pusey B
    106. Muratet MA
    107. Varley KE
    108. Bowling KM
    109. Newberry KM
    110. Nesmith AS
    111. Dilocker JA
    112. Parker SL
    113. Waite LL
    114. Thibeault K
    115. Roberts K
    116. Absher DM
    117. Mortazavi A
    118. Williams B
    119. Marinov G
    120. Trout D
    121. King B
    122. McCue K
    123. Kirilusha A
    124. DeSalvo G
    125. Fisher KA
    126. Amrhein H
    127. Pepke S
    128. Vielmetter J
    129. Sherlock G
    130. Sidow A
    131. Batzoglou S
    132. Rauch R
    133. Kundaje A
    134. Libbrecht M
    135. Margulies EH
    136. Parker SCJ
    137. Elnitski L
    138. Green ED
    139. Hubbard T
    140. Harrow J
    141. Searle S
    142. Parker SCJ
    143. Aken B
    144. Frankish A
    145. Hunt T
    146. Despacio-Reyes G
    147. Kay M
    148. Mukherjee G
    149. Bignell A
    150. Saunders G
    151. Boychenko V
    152. Brent M
    153. Baren MJ
    154. Brown RH
    155. Gerstein M
    156. Khurana E
    157. Balasubramanian S
    158. Lam H
    159. Cayting P
    160. Robilotto R
    161. Lu Z
    162. Derrien T
    163. Tanzer A
    164. Knowles DG
    165. Mariotti M
    166. Haussler D
    167. Harte R
    168. Diekhans M
    169. Lin M
    170. Valencia A
    171. Tress M
    172. Rodriguez JM
    173. Raha D
    174. Shi M
    175. Euskirchen G
    176. Grubert F
    177. Kasowski M
    178. Lian J
    179. Lacroute P
    180. Xu Y
    181. Monahan H
    182. Patacsil D
    183. Slifer T
    184. Yang X
    185. Charos A
    186. Reed B
    187. Wu L
    188. Auerbach RK
    189. Habegger L
    190. Hariharan M
    191. Rozowsky J
    192. Abyzov A
    193. Weissman SM
    194. Struhl K
    195. Lamarre-Vincent N
    196. Lindahl-Allen M
    197. Miotto B
    198. Moqtaderi Z
    199. Fleming JD
    200. Newburger P
    201. Farnham PJ
    202. Frietze S
    203. O’Geen H
    204. Xu X
    205. Blahnik KR
    206. Cao AR
    207. Iyengar S
    208. Kaul R
    209. Thurman RE
    210. Hao W
    211. Navas PA
    212. Sandstrom R
    213. Sabo PJ
    214. Weaver M
    215. Canfield T
    216. Lee K
    217. Neph S
    218. Roach V
    219. Reynolds A
    220. Johnson A
    221. Rynes E
    222. Giste E
    223. Vong S
    224. Neri J
    225. Frum T
    226. Nguyen ED
    227. Ebersol AK
    228. Sanchez ME
    229. Sheffer HH
    230. Lotakis D
    231. Haugen E
    232. Humbert R
    233. Kutyavin T
    234. Shafer T
    235. Noble WS
    236. Dekker J
    237. Lajoie BR
    238. Sanyal A
    239. Rosenbloom KR
    240. Dreszer TR
    241. Raney BJ
    242. Barber GP
    243. Meyer LR
    244. Sloan CA
    245. Malladi VS
    246. Cline MS
    247. Learned K
    248. Swing VK
    249. Zweig AS
    250. Rhead B
    251. Fujita PA
    252. Roskin K
    253. Karolchik D
    254. Kuhn RM
    255. Wilder SP
    256. Sobral D
    257. Herrero J
    258. Beal K
    259. Lukk M
    260. Brazma A
    261. Vaquerizas JM
    262. Luscombe NM
    263. Bickel PJ
    264. Boley N
    265. Brown JB
    266. Li Q
    267. Huang H
    268. Sboner A
    269. Yip KY
    270. Cheng C
    271. Yan KK

    (2011) A user’s guide to the encyclopedia of DNA elements (ENCODE). 9

    PLOS Biology 9:e1001046.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.1001046

    • Google Scholar
56. Software

    1. Neuwirth E

    (2022) RColorBrewer: colorbrewer palettes

    Rcolorbrewers.

    https://r-graph-gallery.com/38-rcolorbrewers-palettes.html
57. 1. Nilsson EE
    2. Anway MD
    3. Stanfield J
    4. Skinner MK

    (2008) Transgenerational epigenetic effects of the endocrine disruptor vinclozolin on pregnancies and female adult onset disease

    Reproduction 135:713–721.

    https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-07-0542

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. Software

    1. Nystrom S

    (2023) Motif matching, comparison, and de novo discovery using the MEME suite, version 1.3.2

    Memes.

    https://snystrom.github.io/memes-manual/
59. 1. Ohta H
    2. Kurimoto K
    3. Okamoto I
    4. Nakamura T
    5. Yabuta Y
    6. Miyauchi H
    7. Yamamoto T
    8. Okuno Y
    9. Hagiwara M
    10. Shirane K
    11. Sasaki H
    12. Saitou M

    (2017) In vitro expansion of mouse primordial germ cell-like cells recapitulates an epigenetic blank slate

    The EMBO Journal 36:1888–1907.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201695862

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Okonechnikov K
    2. Conesa A
    3. García-Alcalde F

    (2016) Qualimap 2: advanced multi-sample quality control for high-throughput sequencing data

    Bioinformatics 32:292–294.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv566

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Ozgyin L
    2. Erdős E
    3. Bojcsuk D
    4. Balint BL

    (2015) Nuclear receptors in transgenerational epigenetic inheritance

    Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 118:34–43.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.02.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. Software

    1. Pagès H
    2. Carlson M
    3. Falcon S
    4. Li N

    (2023) AnnotationDbi: manipulation of sqlite-based annotations in bioconductor, version 4.4

    Bioconductor Open Source Software of Bioinformatics.

    https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/AnnotationDbi.html
63. 1. Patrat C
    2. Okamoto I
    3. Diabangouaya P
    4. Vialon V
    5. Le Baccon P
    6. Chow J
    7. Heard E

    (2009) Dynamic changes in paternal X-chromosome activity during imprinted X-chromosome inactivation in mice

    PNAS 106:5198–5203.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810683106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. Website

    1. Rat Genome Database

    (2024a) Gprc5b (G protein-coupled receptor, class C, group 5, member B)

    Accessed September 19, 2024.

    https://rgd.mcw.edu/rgdweb/report/gene/main.html?id=1309510
65. Website

    1. Rat Genome Database

    (2024b) Gprc5a (G protein-coupled receptor, class C, group 5, member A)

    Accessed September 19, 2024.

    https://rgd.mcw.edu/rgdweb/report/gene/main.html?id=1310804
66. Website

    1. Rat Genome Database

    (2024c) Gpr89b (G protein-coupled receptor 89B)

    Accessed September 19, 2024.

    https://rgd.mcw.edu/rgdweb/report/gene/main.html?id=1304837
67. Website

    1. Rat Genome Database

    (2024d) Gpr161 (G protein-coupled receptor 161)

    Accessed September 19, 2024.

    https://rgd.mcw.edu/rgdweb/report/gene/main.html?id=1563245
68. Website

    1. Rat Genome Database

    (2024e) Gpr107 (G protein-coupled receptor 107)

    Accessed September 19, 2024.

    https://rgd.mcw.edu/rgdweb/report/gene/main.html?id=1305882
69. 1. Ribeiro E
    2. Delgadinho M
    3. Brito M

    (2019) Environmentally relevant concentrations of bisphenol a interact with doxorubicin transcriptional effects in human cell lines

    Toxics 7:43.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics7030043

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Rio DC
    2. Ares M
    3. Hannon GJ
    4. Nilsen TW

    (2010) Purification of RNA using TRIzol (TRI reagent)

    Cold Spring Harbor Protocols 2010:1–4.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.prot5439

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Robinson MD
    2. McCarthy DJ
    3. Smyth GK

    (2010) edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data

    Bioinformatics 26:139–140.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Robinson MD
    2. Oshlack A

    (2010) A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data

    Genome Biology 11:1–9.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/GB-2010-11-3-R25/FIGURES/3

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Rodig SJ

    (2022) Cell Staining

    Cold Spring Harbor Protocols 2022:Pdb.top099606.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.top099606

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Roy SK
    2. Greenwald GS

    (1996) Methods of separation and in-vitro culture of pre-antral follicles from mammalian ovaries

    Human Reproduction Update 2:236–245.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/2.3.236

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. Software

    1. Ryan D

    (2023a) MethylDackel: A (mostly) universal methylation extractor for BS-seq experiments, version 3c77bda

    Github.

    https://github.com/dpryan79/MethylDackel
76. Software

    1. Ryan D

    (2023b) Dpryan79 methyl dackel, version swh:1:rev:3c77bda12141e99d80234d416e668a90ec70b3f7

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:60d74de14f4a3ba405483f9874e9a6467b79e98d;origin=https://github.com/dpryan79/MethylDackel;visit=swh:1:snp:d509c9ffb58c1ce7e9e0d5d5890886723cb705e8;anchor=swh:1:rev:3c77bda12141e99d80234d416e668a90ec70b3f7
77. 1. Sambrook J
    2. Russell DW

    (2006) Purification of nucleic acids by extraction with phenol:chloroform

    Cold Spring Harbor Protocols 2006:pdb.prot4455.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.prot4045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Santos F
    2. Hendrich B
    3. Reik W
    4. Dean W

    (2002) Dynamic reprogramming of DNA methylation in the early mouse embryo

    Developmental Biology 241:172–182.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/dbio.2001.0501

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Sanz LA
    2. Kota SK
    3. Feil R

    (2010) Genome-wide DNA demethylation in mammals

    Genome Biology 11:110.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2010-11-3-110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Schilbert HM
    2. Rempel A
    3. Pucker B

    (2020) Comparison of read mapping and variant calling tools for the analysis of plant NGS data

    Plants 9:439.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9040439

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Schindelin J
    2. Arganda-Carreras I
    3. Frise E
    4. Kaynig V
    5. Longair M
    6. Pietzsch T
    7. Preibisch S
    8. Rueden C
    9. Saalfeld S
    10. Schmid B
    11. Tinevez JY
    12. White DJ
    13. Hartenstein V
    14. Eliceiri K
    15. Tomancak P
    16. Cardona A

    (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis

    Nature Methods 9:676–682.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Senyildiz M
    2. Karaman EF
    3. Bas SS
    4. Pirincci PA
    5. Ozden S

    (2017) Effects of BPA on global DNA methylation and global histone 3 lysine modifications in SH-SY5Y cells: An epigenetic mechanism linking the regulation of chromatin modifiying genes

    Toxicology in Vitro 44:313–321.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2017.07.028

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Sloan CA
    2. Chan ET
    3. Davidson JM
    4. Malladi VS
    5. Strattan JS
    6. Hitz BC
    7. Gabdank I
    8. Narayanan AK
    9. Ho M
    10. Lee BT
    11. Rowe LD
    12. Dreszer TR
    13. Roe G
    14. Podduturi NR
    15. Tanaka F
    16. Hong EL
    17. Cherry JM

    (2016) ENCODE data at the ENCODE portal

    Nucleic Acids Research 44:D726–D732.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1160

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. Software

    1. Slowikowski K
    2. Schep A
    3. Hughes S
    4. Dang TK
    5. Lukauskas S
    6. Irisson JO
    7. Kamvar ZN
    8. Ryan T
    9. Christophe D
    10. Hiroaki Y
    11. Gramme P
    12. Abdol AM
    13. Barrett M
    14. Cannoodt R
    15. Krassowski M
    16. Chirico M
    17. Aphalo P

    (2023) Ggrepel: automatically position non-overlapping text labels with “ggplot2, version 0.9.5

    Rdrr.Io.

    https://ggrepel.slowkow.com/
85. 1. Song A
    2. Ona J
    3. Osuna C
    4. Phandthong R
    5. Talbot P

    (2023) Establishing a disease-in-a-dish model to study SARS-CoV-2 infection during prenatal development

    Current Protocols 3:e759.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cpz1.759

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Swedenborg E
    2. Rüegg J
    3. Mäkelä S
    4. Pongratz I

    (2009) Endocrine disruptive chemicals: mechanisms of action and involvement in metabolic disorders

    Journal of Molecular Endocrinology 43:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1677/JME-08-0132

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. Software

    1. Team BC

    (2015) Mus.musculus: annotation package for the mus.musculus object, version 4.4

    Bioconductor Open Source Software for Bioinformatics.

    https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/data/annotation/html/Mus.musculus.html
88. Software

    1. Team TBD

    (2021) BSgenome.mmusculus.UCSC.mm10: full genome sequences for Mus musculus (UCSC version mm10, based on grcm38.p6), version 4.4

    Bioconductor Open Source Software for Bioinformatics.

    https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/data/annotation/html/BSgenome.Mmusculus.UCSC.mm10.html
89. 1. Thomas P
    2. Dong J

    (2006) Binding and activation of the seven-transmembrane estrogen receptor GPR30 by environmental estrogens: A potential novel mechanism of endocrine disruption

    The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 102:175–179.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2006.09.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. Software

    1. Tremblay B

    (2023) Universalmotif: import, modify, and export motifs with R, version 1.22.2

    Bioconductor Open Source Software of Bioinformatics.

    https://bioconductor.org/packages/universalmotif/
91. 1. Triche TJ
    2. Weisenberger DJ
    3. Van Den Berg D
    4. Laird PW
    5. Siegmund KD

    (2013) Low-level processing of illumina infinium DNA methylation BeadArrays

    Nucleic Acids Research 41:e90.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt090

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. vom Saal FS
    2. Hughes C

    (2005) An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for A new risk assessment

    Environmental Health Perspectives 113:926–933.

    https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7713

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Wang J
    2. Zhuang J
    3. Iyer S
    4. Lin XY
    5. Whitfield TW
    6. Greven MC
    7. Pierce BG
    8. Dong X
    9. Kundaje A
    10. Cheng Y
    11. Rando OJ
    12. Birney E
    13. Myers RM
    14. Noble WS
    15. Snyder M
    16. Weng Z

    (2012) Sequence features and chromatin structure around the genomic regions bound by 119 human transcription factors

    Genome Research 22:1798–1812.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.139105.112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Wang J
    2. Zhuang J
    3. Iyer S
    4. Lin XY
    5. Greven MC
    6. Kim BH
    7. Moore J
    8. Pierce BG
    9. Dong X
    10. Virgil D
    11. Birney E
    12. Hung JH
    13. Weng Z

    (2013) Factorbook.org: a Wiki-based database for transcription factor-binding data generated by the ENCODE consortium

    Nucleic Acids Research 41:D171–D176.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1221

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Wang T
    2. Pehrsson EC
    3. Purushotham D
    4. Li D
    5. Zhuo X
    6. Zhang B
    7. Lawson HA
    8. Province MA
    9. Krapp C
    10. Lan Y
    11. Coarfa C
    12. Katz TA
    13. Tang WY
    14. Wang Z
    15. Biswal S
    16. Rajagopalan S
    17. Colacino JA
    18. Tsai ZT-Y
    19. Sartor MA
    20. Neier K
    21. Dolinoy DC
    22. Pinto J
    23. Hamanaka RB
    24. Mutlu GM
    25. Patisaul HB
    26. Aylor DL
    27. Crawford GE
    28. Wiltshire T
    29. Chadwick LH
    30. Duncan CG
    31. Garton AE
    32. McAllister KA
    33. TaRGET II Consortium
    34. Bartolomei MS
    35. Walker CL
    36. Tyson FL

    (2018) The NIEHS TaRGET II Consortium and environmental epigenomics

    Nature Biotechnology 36:225–227.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4099

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. Software

    1. Wickham H
    2. RStudio

    (2022) Stringr: simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations, version 1.5.1

    Stringr.

    https://stringr.tidyverse.org/
97. Software

    1. Wickham H
    2. Chang W
    3. Henry L
    4. Pedersen TL
    5. Takahashi K
    6. Wilke C
    7. Woo K
    8. Yutani H
    9. Dunnington D
    10. Posit P

    (2023a) Ggplot2: create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics, version 3.5.1

    R/Ggplot2-Package.R.

    https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org/reference/ggplot2-package.html
98. Software

    1. Wickham H
    2. François R
    3. Henry L
    4. Müller K
    5. Vaughan D
    6. Posit Software P

    (2023b) Dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation, version 1.1.4

    Dplyr.

    https://dplyr.tidyverse.org/
99. Software

    1. Wickham H
    2. Vaughan D
    3. Girlich M
    4. Ushey K
    5. Posit Software PBC

    (2023c) Tidyr: tidy messy data, version 1.3.1

    Tidyr.

    https://tidyr.tidyverse.org/
100. 1. Wöste M
     2. Leitão E
     3. Laurentino S
     4. Horsthemke B
     5. Rahmann S
     6. Schröder C

     (2020) Wg-blimp: An end-to-end analysis pipeline for whole genome bisulfite sequencing data

     BMC Bioinformatics 21:1–8.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/S12859-020-3470-5/FIGURES/3

     • Google Scholar
101. Software

     1. Wright K

     (2023) Pals: color palettes, colormaps, and tools to evaluate them, version 1.9

     Pals.

     https://kwstat.github.io/pals/
102. Software

     1. Xie Y
     2. Sarma A
     3. Vogt A
     4. Andrew A
     5. Zvoleff A
     6. Al-Zubaidi A
     7. Simon A
     8. Atkins A
     9. Baumer W
     10. Wolen A
     11. Manton A
     12. Yasumoto A
     13. Baumer B
     14. Diggs B
     15. Zhang B
     16. Yapparov B
     17. Pereira C
     18. Dervieux C
     19. Hall D
     20. Hugh-J D
     21. Robinson D
     22. Hemken D
     23. Murdoch D
     24. Campitelli E
     25. Hughes E
     26. Riederer E
     27. Hirschmann F
     28. Simeon F

     (2023) Knitr: A general-purpose package for dynamic report generation in R

     Rdrr.Io.

     https://rdrr.io/cran/knitr/
103. Software

     1. Yan L

     (2023) Ggvenn: draw venn diagram by “ggplot2, version 0.1.10

     Ggvenn.

     https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggvenn/ggvenn.pdf
104. 1. Ye J
     2. Coulouris G
     3. Zaretskaya I
     4. Cutcutache I
     5. Rozen S
     6. Madden TL

     (2012) Primer-BLAST: A tool to design target-specific primers for polymerase chain reaction

     BMC Bioinformatics 13:134.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-13-134

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. You L
     2. Casanova M
     3. Archibeque-Engle S
     4. Sar M
     5. Fan LQ
     6. d’A HH

     (1998) Impaired male sexual development in perinatal Sprague-Dawley and Long- Evans hooded rats exposed in utero and lactationally to p,p’-DDE

     Toxicological Sciences 45:162–173.

     https://doi.org/10.1006/toxs.1998.2515

     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Zhou W
     2. Triche TJ
     3. Laird PW
     4. Shen H

     (2018) SeSAMe: reducing artifactual detection of DNA methylation by Infinium BeadChips in genomic deletions

     Nucleic Acids Research 46:e123.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky691

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. Software

     1. Zhou W

     (2022) Wheatmap: incrementally build complex plots using natural semantics

     Rdrr.Io.

     https://rdrr.io/cran/wheatmap/
108. 1. Zhou W
     2. Hinoue T
     3. Barnes B
     4. Mitchell O
     5. Iqbal W
     6. Lee SM
     7. Foy KK
     8. Lee KH
     9. Moyer EJ
     10. VanderArk A
     11. Koeman JM
     12. Ding W
     13. Kalkat M
     14. Spix NJ
     15. Eagleson B
     16. Pospisilik JA
     17. Szabó PE
     18. Bartolomei MS
     19. Vander Schaaf NA
     20. Kang L
     21. Wiseman AK
     22. Jones PA
     23. Krawczyk CM
     24. Adams M
     25. Porecha R
     26. Chen BH
     27. Shen H
     28. Laird PW

     (2022) DNA methylation dynamics and dysregulation delineated by high-throughput profiling in the mouse

     Cell Genomics 2:100144.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100144

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Jake D Lehle

   Department of Neuroscience, Developmental and Regenerative Biology, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0833-7068

2. Yu-Huey Lin

   Department of Neuroscience, Developmental and Regenerative Biology, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0009-0003-1321-0680

3. Amanda Gomez

   Department of Neuroscience, Developmental and Regenerative Biology, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Laura Chavez

   Department of Neuroscience, Developmental and Regenerative Biology, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. John R McCarrey

   Department of Neuroscience, Developmental and Regenerative Biology, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   john.mccarrey@utsa.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5784-9318

• 383

  views

• 33

  downloads

• 0

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.