Reanalysis of Human Blastocysts with Different Molecular Genetic Screening Platforms Reveals Significant Discordance in Ploidy Status

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2016 Jul 18

PMID 27423662

Citations 14

Authors

Drew V Tortoriello

Molina Dayal

Zeki Beyhan

Tahsin Yakut

Levent Keskintepe

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to determine mosaicism and its effect on blastocysts; abnormal blastocysts determined by molecular testing were sequentially biopsied and retested.

Material And Method: We re-biopsied 37 blastocyst-stage abnormal embryos from eight patients, which were reanalyzed to determine the level of concordance between biopsies and inter-laboratory congruence between reputable commercial PGS laboratories.

Results: The main outcome measures were intra-embryo variation between sequential embryo biopsies and inter-laboratory variation between two PGS laboratories. The compatibility between both aCGH and NGS was found to be 11 % (3/27). Importantly, 9/27 (33 %) of embryos originally reported to be aneuploid, upon repeat assessment, were found to be euploid. The concurrence for SNP array and NGS was 50 % (3/6), and 17 % (1/6) of these abnormal embryos tested normal upon re-evaluation with NGS. NGS resulted 41 % (11/27) normal results when 27 of CGH abnormal embryos were retested. Concordance between aCGH and NGS was 4 % (1/27) whereas in three instances, gender discrepancy was observed with NGS when aCGH abnormal embryos were reanalyzed.

Conclusions: The results of these studies reinforce the prevalence of inconsistencies during PGS evaluation of trophectoderm biopsies possibly due to variations in platform sensitivity and heightening concerns over the clinical tractability of such technology in human ARTs..

Citing Articles

PGT-A is associated with reduced cumulative live birth rate in first reported IVF stimulation cycles age ≤ 40: an analysis of 133,494 autologous cycles reported to SART CORS.

Kucherov A, Fazzari M, Lieman H, Ball G, Doody K, Jindal S J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022; 40(1):137-149.

PMID: 36454362 PMC: 9840738. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02667-x.

From contemplation to classification of chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos.

Lebedev I, Zhigalina D J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38(11):2833-2848.

PMID: 34518954 PMC: 8609036. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02304-z.

The 2019 PGDIS position statement on transfer of mosaic embryos within a context of new information on PGT-A.

Gleicher N, Albertini D, Barad D, Homer H, Modi D, Murtinger M Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020; 18(1):57.

PMID: 32471441 PMC: 7257212. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-020-00616-w.

Re-analysis of whole blastocysts after trophectoderm biopsy indicated chromosome aneuploidy.

Ou Z, Chen Z, Yin M, Deng Y, Liang Y, Wang W Hum Genomics. 2020; 14(1):3.

PMID: 31931889 PMC: 6958758. DOI: 10.1186/s40246-019-0253-z.

The mechanisms and clinical application of mosaicism in preimplantation embryos.

Li X, Hao Y, Elshewy N, Zhu X, Zhang Z, Zhou P J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019; 37(3):497-508.

PMID: 31838629 PMC: 7125259. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01656-x.

References

Treff N, Fedick A, Tao X, Devkota B, Taylor D, Scott Jr R . Evaluation of targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic disease. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(5):1377-1384.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.018. View

Vanneste E, Voet T, Melotte C, Debrock S, Sermon K, Staessen C . What next for preimplantation genetic screening? High mitotic chromosome instability rate provides the biological basis for the low success rate. Hum Reprod. 2009; 24(11):2679-82. PMC: 2763130. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep266. View

Keskintepe L, Sher G, Machnicka A, Tortoriello D, Bayrak A, Fisch J . Vitrification of human embryos subjected to blastomere biopsy for pre-implantation genetic screening produces higher survival and pregnancy rates than slow freezing. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009; 26(11-12):629-35. PMC: 2799564. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-009-9369-8. View

Conlin L, Thiel B, Bonnemann C, Medne L, Ernst L, Zackai E . Mechanisms of mosaicism, chimerism and uniparental disomy identified by single nucleotide polymorphism array analysis. Hum Mol Genet. 2010; 19(7):1263-75. PMC: 3146011. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddq003. View

Munne S, Wells D, Cohen J . Technology requirements for preimplantation genetic diagnosis to improve assisted reproduction outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2009; 94(2):408-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.091. View

Greco E, Minasi M, Fiorentino F . Healthy Babies after Intrauterine Transfer of Mosaic Aneuploid Blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(21):2089-90. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1500421. View

Capalbo A, Wright G, Elliott T, Ubaldi F, Rienzi L, Nagy Z . FISH reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts shows high accuracy of diagnosis and no major diagnostic impact of mosaicism at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(8):2298-307. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det245. View

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

Baart E, Martini E, van den Berg I, Macklon N, Galjaard R, Fauser B . Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2005; 21(1):223-33. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei291. View

10.

Orvieto R, Shuly Y, Brengauz M, Feldman B . Should pre-implantation genetic screening be implemented to routine clinical practice?. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016; 32(6):506-8. DOI: 10.3109/09513590.2016.1142962. View

11.

Treff N, Levy B, Su J, Northrop L, Tao X, Scott Jr R . SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010; 16(8):583-9. PMC: 2907219. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaq039. View

12.

Kalousek D, Dill F . Chromosomal mosaicism confined to the placenta in human conceptions. Science. 1983; 221(4611):665-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.6867735. View

13.

Evans M, Wright D, Pergament E, Cuckle H, Nicolaides K . Digital PCR for noninvasive detection of aneuploidy: power analysis equations for feasibility. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2012; 31(4):244-7. DOI: 10.1159/000337544. View

14.

Mastenbroek S, Repping S . Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(9):1846-50. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu163. View

15.

Wells D, Sherlock J, Handyside A, Delhanty J . Detailed chromosomal and molecular genetic analysis of single cells by whole genome amplification and comparative genomic hybridisation. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999; 27(4):1214-8. PMC: 148305. DOI: 10.1093/nar/27.4.1214. View

16.

Gleicher N, Kushnir V, Barad D . Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014; 12:22. PMC: 3986466. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-12-22. View

17.

Johnson D, Gemelos G, Baner J, Ryan A, Cinnioglu C, Banjevic M . Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25(4):1066-75. PMC: 2839907. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep452. View

18.

King R . When 2+2=5: the origins and fates of aneuploid and tetraploid cells. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2008; 1786(1):4-14. PMC: 2581926. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2008.07.007. View

19.

Yan L, Huang L, Xu L, Huang J, Ma F, Zhu X . Live births after simultaneous avoidance of monogenic diseases and chromosome abnormality by next-generation sequencing with linkage analyses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(52):15964-9. PMC: 4702982. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1523297113. View

20.

Bazrgar M, Gourabi H, Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Yazdi P, Baharvand H . Self-correction of chromosomal abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2013; 22(17):2449-56. DOI: 10.1089/scd.2013.0053. View