» Articles » PMID: 19633308

What Next for Preimplantation Genetic Screening? High Mitotic Chromosome Instability Rate Provides the Biological Basis for the Low Success Rate

Overview
Journal Hum Reprod
Date 2009 Jul 28
PMID 19633308
Citations 25
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Preimplantation genetic screening is being scrutinized, as recent randomized clinical trials failed to observe the expected significant increase in live birth rates following fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-based screening. Although these randomized clinical trials are criticized on their design, skills or premature stop, it is generally believed that well-designed and well-executed randomized clinical trials would resolve the debate about the potential benefit of preimplantation genetic screening. Since FISH can analyze only a limited number of chromosomal loci, some of the embryos transferred might be diagnosed as 'normal' but in fact be aneuploid for one or more chromosomes not tested. Hence, genome-wide array comparative genome hybridization screening enabling aneuploidy detection of all chromosomes was thought to be a first step toward a better design. We recently showed array screening indeed enables accurate determination of the copy number state of all chromosomes in a single cell. Surprisingly, however, this genome-wide array screening revealed a much higher frequency and complexity of chromosomal aberrations in early embryos than anticipated, with imbalances in a staggering 90% of all embryos. The mitotic error rate in cleavage stage embryos was proven to be higher than the meiotic aneuploidy rate and as a consequence, the genome of a single blastomere is not representative for the genome of the other cells of the embryo. Hence, potentially viable embryos will be discarded upon screening a single blastomere. This observation provides a biological basis for the failure of the randomized clinical trials to increase baby-take-home rates using FISH on cleavage stage embryos.

Citing Articles

PGT-A: what's it for, what's wrong?.

Viville S, Aboulghar M J Assist Reprod Genet. 2025; 42(1):63-69.

PMID: 39847200 PMC: 11806166. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-025-03400-0.


Single-cell DNA sequencing reveals a high incidence of chromosomal abnormalities in human blastocysts.

Chavli E, Klaasen S, Van Opstal D, Laven J, Kops G, Baart E J Clin Invest. 2024; 134(6).

PMID: 38175717 PMC: 10940095. DOI: 10.1172/JCI174483.


CHK1-CDC25A-CDK1 regulate cell cycle progression and protect genome integrity in early mouse embryos.

Knoblochova L, duricek T, Vaskovicova M, Zorzompokou C, Rayova D, Ferencova I EMBO Rep. 2023; 24(10):e56530.

PMID: 37694680 PMC: 10561370. DOI: 10.15252/embr.202256530.


Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation parameters are not associated with chromosomal abnormality rates and clinical pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing.

Liu Y, Shen J, Zhang Y, Peng R, Zhao J, Zhou P Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023; 13:1080843.

PMID: 36714593 PMC: 9877337. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1080843.


The Effect of Teratozoospermia on Sex Chromosomes in Human Embryos.

Mostafa Nayel D, Salah El Din Mahrous H, El Din Khalifa E, Kholeif S, Elhady G Appl Clin Genet. 2021; 14:125-144.

PMID: 33732009 PMC: 7959001. DOI: 10.2147/TACG.S299349.


References
1.
Schoolcraft W, Katz-Jaffe M, Stevens J, Rawlins M, Munne S . Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial. Fertil Steril. 2008; 92(1):157-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.029. View

2.
Simpson J . What next for preimplantation genetic screening? Randomized clinical trial in assessing PGS: necessary but not sufficient. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23(10):2179-81. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den250. View

3.
Wilton L . Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in early human embryos: a review. Prenat Diagn. 2002; 22(6):512-8. DOI: 10.1002/pd.388. View

4.
Goossens V, Harton G, Moutou C, Scriven P, Traeger-Synodinos J, Sermon K . ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection VIII: cycles from January to December 2005 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2006. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23(12):2629-45. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den238. View

5.
Harper J, Sermon K, Geraedts J, Vesela K, Harton G, Thornhill A . What next for preimplantation genetic screening?. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23(3):478-80. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dem424. View