» Articles » PMID: 24764761

Reprogenetics: Preimplantational Genetics Diagnosis

Overview
Journal Genet Mol Biol
Specialty Genetics
Date 2014 Apr 26
PMID 24764761
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Preimplantational Genetics Diagnosis (PGD) is requested by geneticists and reproductive specialists. Usually geneticists ask for PGD because one or both members of the couple have an increased genetic risk for having an affected offspring. On the other hand, reproductive specialists ask for embryo aneuploidy screening (PGS) to assures an euploid embryo transfer, with the purpose to achieve an ongoing pregnancy, although the couple have normal karyotypes. As embryonic aneuploidies are responsible for pre and post implantation abortions, it is logical to considerer that the screening of the embryonic aneuploidies prior to embryo transfer could improve the efficiency of the in vitro fertilization procedures. Nevertheless, it is still premature to affirm this until well-designed clinical trials were done, especially in women of advanced age where the rate of embryos with aneuploidies is much greater. Although the indications of PGD are similar to conventional prenatal diagnosis (PND), PGD has less ethical objections than the PND. As with the PGD/PGS results only unaffected embryos are transferred, both methods can avoid the decision to interrupt the pregnancy due to a genetic problem; this makes an important difference when compared to conventional prenatal diagnosis.

Citing Articles

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an update on current technologies and ethical considerations.

Sueoka K Reprod Med Biol. 2017; 15(2):69-75.

PMID: 29259423 PMC: 5715849. DOI: 10.1007/s12522-015-0224-6.


Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory.

Geraedts J, Sermon K Mol Hum Reprod. 2016; 22(8):839-44.

PMID: 27256482 PMC: 4986416. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaw033.


Genetic considerations in recurrent pregnancy loss.

Hyde K, Schust D Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2015; 5(3):a023119.

PMID: 25659378 PMC: 4355257. DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a023119.

References
1.
Johnson D, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, Filby A, Gemelos G, Hill M . Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010; 16(12):944-9. PMC: 2989828. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaq062. View

2.
Kuliev A, Verlinsky Y . Meiotic and mitotic nondisjunction: lessons from preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod Update. 2004; 10(5):401-7. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmh036. View

3.
Jansen R, Bowman M, de Boer K, Leigh D, Lieberman D, McArthur S . What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23(7):1476-8. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den129. View

4.
Davies M, Moore V, Willson K, van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H . Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(19):1803-13. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008095. View

5.
Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S . Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012; 98(2):368-77.e1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.019. View