Scientists at Cambridge have unveiled a fascinating mechanism where fetuses use a paternal gene to control the mother’s nutrient release during pregnancy.
This “remote control” system involves hormonal signals from the placenta, which ensure the fetus grows optimally by altering the mother’s metabolic processes. Remarkably, this battle for nutrients is a delicate balance, crucial not just for fetal growth but also for the mother’s health and her future reproductive potential.
Nutritional Control in Pregnancy
Cambridge scientists have discovered that fetuses use a gene inherited from their father to influence their mother’s body into providing more nutrients during pregnancy.
This creates a kind of “nutritional tug of war,” where the unborn baby ‘remote controls’ its mother’s metabolism to maximize its growth, while the mother’s body balances her own need to maintain health. The mother must ensure enough glucose and fats remain available for her energy needs, to sustain the pregnancy, support breastfeeding, and allow for future pregnancies.
Hormonal Signaling by the Placenta
A University of Cambridge study explored how the placenta plays a key role in this process. By releasing specific hormones, the placenta communicates with the mother’s body to prioritize the baby’s growth. This vital organ, which develops alongside the fetus, supports fetal development in humans and other mammals. In experiments with pregnant mice, scientists modified the signaling cells in the placenta that regulate how nutrients are allocated to the fetus.
Professor Amanda Sferruzzi-Perri, Professor in Fetal and Placental Physiology, a Fellow of St John’s College and co-senior author of the paper, said: “It’s the first direct evidence that a gene inherited from the father is signaling to the mother to divert nutrients to the fetus.”
Gene Wars: Maternal vs Paternal Influences
Dr. Miguel Constancia, MRC Investigator based at the Wellcome-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science and co-senior author of the paper, said: “The baby’s remote control system is operated by genes that can be switched on or off depending on whether they are a ‘dad’s’ or ‘mum’s’ gene’, the so-called imprinted genes.
“Genes controlled by the father are ‘greedy’ and ‘selfish’ and will tend to manipulate maternal resources for the benefit of the fetuses, so to grow them big and fittest. Although pregnancy is largely cooperative, there is a big arena for potential conflict between the mother and the baby, with imprinted genes and the placenta thought to play key roles.”
The findings by researchers from the Centre for Trophoblast Research at Cambridge’s Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience and the Medical Research Council Metabolic Diseases Unit, part of the Wellcome-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, have been published in Cell Metabolism.
The baby’s genes controlled by the father tend to promote fetal growth and those controlled by the mother tend to limit fetal growth.
Professor Sferruzzi-Perri explained: “Those genes from the mother that limit fetal growth are thought to be a mother’s way of ensuring her survival, so she doesn’t have a baby that takes all the nutrients and is too big and challenging to birth. The mother also has a chance of having subsequent pregnancies potentially with different males in the future to pass on her genes more widely.”
Genetic Manipulation and Nutrient Allocation
Researchers deleted the expression of an important imprinted gene called Igf2, which provides instructions for making a protein called ‘Insulin Like Growth Factor 2’. Similar to the hormone insulin, which is responsible for making and controlling glucose levels in our circulation, the gene promotes fetal growth and plays a key part in the development of fetal tissues including the placenta, liver and brain.
Dr. Jorge Lopez-Tello, a lead author of the study based at the University’s Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, said: “If the function of Igf2 from the father is switched off in signaling cells, the mother doesn’t make enough amounts of glucose and lipids – fats – available in her circulation. These nutrients therefore reach the fetus in insufficient amounts and the fetus doesn’t grow properly.”
The scientists found that deleting Igf2 from the placenta’s signaling cells affects the production of other hormones that modulate the way the mother’s pancreas produces insulin, and how her liver and other metabolic organs respond.
“We found Igf2 controls the hormones responsible for reducing insulin sensitivity in the mother during pregnancy. It means the mother’s tissues don’t absorb glucose so nutrients are more available in the circulation to be transferred to the fetus,” said Professor Sferruzzi-Perri.
Babies with Igf2 gene defects can be overgrown or growth-stunted. “Until now, we didn’t know that part of the Igf2 gene’s role is to regulate signaling to the mother to allocate nutrients to the fetus,” added Professor Sferruzzi-Perri.
The mice studied were smaller at birth and their offspring showed early signs of diabetes and obesity in later life.
Professor Sferruzzi-Perri said: “Our research highlights how important the controlled allocation of nutrients to the fetus is for the lifelong health of the offspring, and the direct role the placenta plays.
“The placenta is an amazing organ. At the end of pregnancy, the placenta is delivered by the mother, but the memories of how the placenta was functioning leaves a lasting legacy on the way those fetal organs have developed and then how they’re going to function through life.”
The next step is to understand how placental hormones are controlled by Igf2 and what those hormones are doing. Future research could help scientists discover new strategies to target the placenta to improve health outcomes for mums and babies.
Reference: “Fetal manipulation of maternal metabolism is a critical function of the imprinted Igf2 gene” by Jorge Lopez-Tello, Hannah E.J. Yong, Ionel Sandovici, Georgina K.C. Dowsett, Efthimia R. Christoforou, Esteban Salazar-Petres, Rebecca Boyland, Tina Napso, Giles S.H. Yeo, Brian Y.H. Lam, Miguel Constancia and Amanda N. Sferruzzi-Perri, 11 July 2023, Cell Metabolism.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2023.06.007
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
55 Comments
The title “unborn babies” is made more accurate and succinct with the word fetus.
It’s more succinct and accurate to describe you as a “psycho” than a “human”.
What a seriously unhinged response to a simple and btw accurate scientific observation. Please learn how to adult.
Based on an accurate statement? Actually, “unborn baby” is an oxymoron invented for political purposes.
How? They mean the same thing.
Did you miss sixth grade Science? Poor little guy.
They do NOT mean the same thing. A fetus has the potential to become a baby by going to ‘term’ and experiencing a process known as birth, whereby the fetus is expelled from the protective body of the mother, is detached from the umbilical cord, and begins feeding on its mother’s milk. Not all fetuses make the transition successfully. If it does not successfully make the transition, it is a DOA fetus, not a dead unborn baby. Why don’t we refer to viable fetuses as an undead baby? Because politics isn’t rational!
Oh. My bad. Abotionists always hate the term “unborn baby” because they like the supposedly dehumanizing term “fetus.”
Also, to the same people, meat is “murder”, but abortion somehow isn’t.
Look, I’m pro-choice, but a human life is a human life from conception, no matter what stage or shape.( Bodily autonomy, however, is sacrosanct; so a pregnant person has the right to say “I want this other person out of me.”, and if getting him/her/etc. out of her/him/etc. would result in the unpleasant death of the removee, or if same wouldn’t be an independently viable organism even with mechanical life support, abortion is rendered euthanasia, a death that is better for the subject than alternatives. Of course, this does mean that as technology develops, and life support for earlier and smaller fetuses becomes reality, the responsibilities of pregnancy and abortion change. If artificial wombs and safe transfer procedures ever exist, terminating a transfer candidate will potentially be murder unless financial costs are an unreasonable barrier. Personally, I think that protesters at abortion clinics should be forced to rent their positions by paying into a fund which will someday make this affordable when it’s technologically possible. After all, since their goal is ‘to save lives’, they should be putting their money where their mouths are.)
Boba, not all of us who prefer not to eat meat are supporters of abortion or dehumanizing unborn babies.
“Meat” is a noun and “murder” is a verb. That says a lot about the education and logic of sloganeers who try to advance their political agenda by inventing new meanings for words — meanings which are inevitably ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation — all by design.
Agreed, title is cringe af
“Foetus” is Latin for “prenatal offspring,” so I’m not sure why you’re splitting hairs, except to appeal to the ignorance of some people. “It’s not a baby, it’s a foetus” has never been a good argument, as it’s both/and.
This research only further elucidates: the baby is not part of the mother’s body, it is a distinct human person. It works for its own survival, even at odds to the parents.
Yes, I object to that descriptor given its politically loaded and non-technical nature, it immediately jumped out as being questionable and out of place
What!?
Unborn babies is less awkward than the plural for fetus which is fetuses or feti. Get a grip Brandy.
This research is groundbreaking and fascinating. Kudos to the author for a well written article. And a winning headline.
Lol, it’s worse than all that.
As a fourth-declension noun, the plural of foetus is either foetus, foetuum, or foetibus, depending on the case.
Good luck to all the English speakers with that one.
Lol so the mother having babies with numerous men distributes the mothers genetics more widely? Lol what kind of woke stupidity is that? It doesn’t even make sense. It works that way with men not women.
Every child is 50/50 genetics mother / father. A women has 6 children with 6 different men. Each of child does a DNA test. it will show they share the same mother, and different fathers. If one man has 6 children, each with a different woman, DNA tests will show shared father, different mother. What does not make sense to you?
“Unborn babies” is terribly awkward. The scientific terminology is far more succinct- this is just pandering to those who find science offensive.. which is a waste of time.
Also the men talking about abortions here is just great material for why they shouldn’t make decisions on women’s bodies.
Feti isn’t the plural of fetus. Get a grip Bob
How is two words and 12 letters “less awkward” than one word and 7 letters? After all, you do have access to a spell checker! Get a grip. You are rationalizing. The “winning headline” bespeaks a political position and diminishes the scientific credibility of the author.
So, the mothers hear a tiny voice from within that says: “woman, make me a sammich!”
Or Ice cream & pickles.
Exactly! Hahahaa!
Baby takes hard line 8 foetal months to align with Mom against the Patriarchy. Imprinted placental Igf2, suppressed maternal Igf-2 fingered in limited injunction on dads to find whole proteins in leaves, level up legume propagation game, field-cure Helldivers bugs and deer. Unaligned IGF2 seen rocking out to Otyken.
OoOoh all the tiny, triggered men in the comments bothered by Brandy’s 100% ACCURATE comment! Bwaahahaha!! Get a grip cupcakes- it’s ok to be wrong about there being a (huge) difference btwn a fetus & a baby. It is NOT OK to cry about being wrong in the comments!
Foetus is Latin for “prenatal offspring.” As the research demonstrates, such offspring is a human person, distinct from the mother.
“It’s not an unborn baby, it’s a foetus” isn’t the own you think it is.
I’m sorry do you not ascribe to the science of linguistic evolution? It lacks merit to look at the definition of a word from a dead language and ascribe that ancient meaning to it. Even within a century that would be ridiculous. Case in point ejaculated in books 100 yrs ago meant to exclaim or to state something excitedly. Today it is simply a function of a man’s penis usually occurring before the involved woman is ready to finish. See?🤷🏼♀️
Science utilizes Latin largely because IT’S A DEAD LANGUAGE. It doesn’t evolve. Terms have stability over time. If you want to use Latin terms like “eiaculatio,” expect me to understand it in a Latin manner: “that which has been thrown out (of a thing).” Maybe yesterday that primarily was understood as verbally, and today it is primarily presumed to be excretory, but the word still means the same thing.
Foetus is a Latin word that means “prenatal offspring.” You might choose to (incorrectly) understand it as “meaningless clump of cells,” or to (incorrectly) construe it as distinct from “unborn baby,” but that’s an error on your end. The meaning perdures.
If you want an evolving language, don’t hitch your cart to a dead language.
“…, distinct from the mother.”
Only if it successfully survives the birthing process. Birth is an important event as recognized in “birth date.”
You sure as hell sound like someone who never had a baby.
If you did, however, then you’re just a psycho.
Is menstruating a form of abortion? Cycles often expel fertilized, ( not implanted ) ovum. Should the term ” unborn ” be applied to this procesa as well?
Valid
So igf2 just tells the mother that’s she’s pregnant and needs to feed the growing child, and it happens to be a male gene. I’m not particularly sure why so much emotion was expressed when gene gender was approached but seems pretty biased against male genes. Sounds like it’s doing what it needs to do in order to grow the life it created. Sounds like mothers, and I am one, may not have a gene that tells us we’re pregnant, seems like we need the second person’s DNA to let us know the deed was done and now this is needed. Well it does take 2 to tango, so makes sense.
Yes, “unborn” applies since the formation of the zygote, or conception.
What you’re describing is known as spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage.
Is menstruating a form of abortion? Cycles often expel fertilized, ( not implanted ) ovum. Should the term ” unborn ” be applied to this process as well?
Yes, and yes.
There is, of course, a difference between a naturally occurring “ab ortio” (since ppl seem to like the Latin words here) and the murderous butchery of the seek-and-destroy surgical version, or the murderous poisoning of the chemical version.
People die all the time. That doesn’t justify ax murderers, and it doesn’t justify poisoners. That remains the same whether the victim is 9 months prenatal, or 99 years postnatal, because the human right to life perdures.
What other questions can I help you with?
Does that include the mother’s right to life? Most abortions are done because of the endangered health of the mother. Yet many states literally require the mother to be at deaths door before it is allowed.
Of course the mother retains the right to life.
Unfortunately for your argument, according to the Lozier Institute, about 0.3% of abortions are performed because the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function.
0.3%
Try again?
Using “most” and “literally” the way you do here, Rodolfo, just paints you as a propagandist.
You’re full of it and you know it.
Latin has a long history of association with science. Like it or not.
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. While you may consider the willful act of abortion to be “murderous,” it is in fact NOT murder if allowed by law. Thus, you and those like you, attempting to pervert the definition of murder by using pejorative words like “murderous” for acts that may not be legally defined as murder in some jurisdictions. That is disingenuous, and at its heart, an attempt to manipulate others by employing inappropriate words that impact the subjective reaction of the reader, such as describing a steak, cooked rare, as a bloody segment of muscle tissue from a castrated bull. I prefer language that has a purpose of informing, rather than manipulation.
This is cool stuff!
Please fix the title of this article and replace unborn baby with foetus, which is the scientifically appropriate term.
Take that mitochondria..!
Lmaooooo 🤣🤣
so then every time a male ejaculated into let’s say his hand, a toy, the tub it’s also murder..sperm is alive and can potentially be a baby.. but instead they are dead all over the place.
Sperm cannot become a baby, so they are not “potential babies.” They are part of a man, but they are not the man.
My expelled hairs and shed skin cells are not potential babies, either.
Gotta love the people taking issue with the term “unborn babies.” You know, because science or something. They all seem cut from the same cloth that has no qualms about the paternal genes being characterized as “greedy” and “selfish” when they’re actually necessary for healthy offspring.
Exactly! If scientific evidence proving that the survival of each is at odds with the other’s, AND explaining how, doesn’t convince people abortion bans are unethical despite humanity being inherent at conception? they just aren’t listening.
This is nothing but b*******
Yet more actual evidence that women are manipulated by literally EVERY other living organism.
It wasn’t the anti- abortion people who got “triggered” by the article’s title.
I have a high regard for accurate communication and expect scientific vocabulary in science websites. I have low regard for people who choose to redefine words for the express purpose of manipulating the emotions of their intended audience, particularly when the meanings of the words are not commonly agreed upon and are often ambiguous.