» Articles » PMID: 1735497

Preclinical Models for Human Pre-embryo Biopsy and Genetic Diagnosis. I. Efficiency and Normalcy of Mouse Pre-embryo Development After Different Biopsy Techniques

Overview
Journal Fertil Steril
Date 1992 Feb 1
PMID 1735497
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To compare the usefulness of three micromanipulative methods at two different stages of pre-embryo development and to assess possible effects on postbiopsy survival and development.

Design: Four-cell and eight-cell mouse pre-embryos were biopsied using enucleation, aspiration, or extrusion of single blastomeres. After biopsy, pre-embryos were observed for in vitro and in vivo development.

Setting: Laboratories of The Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School.

Patients, Participants: Only mice were used.

Interventions: Pre-embryo biopsy, developmental normalcy and pre-embryo transfer were studied.

Main Outcome Measure(s): Few pre-embryos died as a result of biopsy trauma. High postbiopsy survival rates were associated with normal intrauterine and postnatal development.

Results: Expanded blastocyst formation rates from four-cell and eight-cell pre-embryos were 94.6%, 96.7% (controls); 80.7%, 89.1% (enucleation); 90.1%, 91.7% (aspiration); 83.1%, 91.5% (extrusion), respectively. Live birth rates at the four-cell stage were slightly lower in the enucleation group than in the blastomere aspiration and extrusion groups or controls (49.2% versus 58.8%, 56.3% and 66.7%, respectively). For the eight-cell stage, there were no differences between the groups. No developmental abnormalities were found in body or organ weights, in neonates or at 3 weeks of age, or in their subsequent ability to reproduce a second generation.

Conclusions: Biopsy of mouse pre-embryos produces only a small loss of viability because of trauma and permits normal prenatal and postnatal development among surviving pre-embryos.

Citing Articles

Analysis of clinical outcomes and meiotic segregation modes following preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangements using aCGH/NGS in couples with balanced chromosome rearrangement.

Nakano T, Ammae M, Satoh M, Mizuno S, Nakaoka Y, Morimoto Y Reprod Med Biol. 2022; 21(1):e12476.

PMID: 35781920 PMC: 9243298. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12476.


A novel trophectoderm biopsy technique for all blastocyst stages.

Mizobe Y, Kuwatsuru Y, Kuroki Y, Fukumoto Y, Tokudome M, Moewaki H Reprod Med Biol. 2022; 21(1):e12418.

PMID: 35386363 PMC: 8967278. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12418.


Pre-implantation genetic testing: Past, present, future.

Takeuchi K Reprod Med Biol. 2021; 20(1):27-40.

PMID: 33488281 PMC: 7812490. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12352.


Between innovation and precaution: how did offspring safety considerations play a role in strategies of introducing new reproductive techniques?.

Jans V, Dondorp W, Mastenbroek S, Mertes H, Pennings G, Smeets H Hum Reprod Open. 2020; 2020(2):hoaa003.

PMID: 32201741 PMC: 7077615. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa003.


In vitro fertilization (IVF) in mammals: epigenetic and developmental alterations. Scientific and bioethical implications for IVF in humans.

Ventura-Junca P, Irarrazaval I, Rolle A, Gutierrez J, Moreno R, Santos M Biol Res. 2015; 48:68.

PMID: 26683055 PMC: 4684609. DOI: 10.1186/s40659-015-0059-y.