Dimethyl fumarate therapy in a Western diet pregnancy model: A pilot study in guinea pigs


Abstract

Background: Maternal Western diet (WD) consumption during pregnancy is linked to adverse gestational and offspring metabolic outcomes. Dimethyl fumarate (DMF), a Nrf2 activator with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, is a proposed therapeutic candidate, but its safety and efficacy during pregnancy remain unexplored. This pilot study aimed to establish a guinea pig model of gestational WD consumption and evaluate the feasibility of DMF treatment on maternal, placental, and fetal outcomes.

Methods: Pregnant guinea pigs consuming a modified WD were randomized to receive either DMF or vehicle beginning at gestational day 19. Maternal weight, urinalysis, blood glucose, and ketones were monitored weekly. Dams were sacrificed near-term, and placental and fetal biometric measures were recorded. The placenta was evaluated for a panel of antioxidant and angiogenic candidate genes via RT-qPCR, and maternal and fetal livers were assessed for triglyceride content, histopathology, and transcriptomic changes via RNA-sequencing.

Results: DMF did not alter maternal weight, blood glucose, urinalysis, or fetal or placental gross outcomes. Hepatic triglyceride concentrations were unaffected in both dams and fetuses. WD consumption resulted in maternal hepatic glycogen accumulation and mild vacuolar hepatopathy without fibrosis, while fetal livers exhibited microvesicular hepatopathy and abundant extramedullary hematopoiesis without fibrosis, irrespective of treatment. Placental RT-qPCR revealed that exposure to DMF led to a decrease in transcription of Sod1 (p = 0.046) and a tendency to decrease transcription of Hmgcr (p = 0.071) and Nqo1 (p = 0.067) with no changes in other measured genes. RNA-sequencing identified 38 differentially expressed genes ( DEG ) in maternal livers, suggesting some immune suppression and induction of the P450 pathway. Fetal hepatic RNA-sequencing identified 51 DEG, distinctly different from maternal DEG, indicating an activation of interleukin 12 production. Distinct differences between fetal and maternal liver transcriptomic profiles were evident, with over 9,000 DEG (65% of annotated transcripts). Dimethyl fumarate conferred no measurable benefit on maternal or fetal hepatopathy and had a paradoxical effect in lowering placental Sod1 gene expression, but, importantly, no overt harm was appreciated. These findings establish the feasibility of a gestational guinea pig WD model and gestational DMF therapy and provide initial insights into maternal-fetal responses to DMF, most notably highlighting divergent hepatic programming between dams and offspring. Future research should assess whether DMF or related Nrf2 activators can be developed as pregnancy therapeutics, explore interactions between antioxidants and placental angiogenesis, and determine long-term offspring outcomes after exposure to WD and DMF during gestational development.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].