Frequency of Chromosomal Aneuploidy in High Quality Embryos from Young Couples Using Preimplantation Genetic Screening

Overview

Journal Int J Reprod Biomed

Specialty Reproductive Medicine

Date 2017 Jul 27

PMID 28744525

Citations 7

Authors

Farzaneh Fesahat

Fatemeh Montazeri

Mohammad Hasan Sheikhha

Hojjatollah Saeedi

Razieh Dehghani Firouzabadi

Seyed Mehdi Kalantar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Selection of the best embryo for transfer is very important in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Using morphological assessment for this selection demonstrated that the correlation between embryo morphology and implantation potential is relatively weak. On the other hand, aneuploidy is a key genetic factor that can influence human reproductive success in ART.

Objective: The aim of this lab trial study was to evaluate the incidence of aneuploidies in five chromosomes in the morphologically high-quality embryos from young patients undergoing ART for sex selection.

Materials And Methods: A total of 97 high quality embryos from 23 women at the age of 37or younger years that had previously undergone preimplantation genetic screening for sex selection were included in this study. After washing, the slides of blastomeres from embryos of patients were reanalyzed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization for chromosomes 13, 18 and 21.

Results: There was a significant rate of aneuploidy determination in the embryos using preimplantation genetic screening for both sex and three evaluated autosomal chromosomes compared to preimplantation genetic screening for only sex chromosomes (62.9% vs. 24.7%, p=0.000). The most frequent detected chromosomal aneuploidy was trisomy or monosomy of chromosome 13.

Conclusion: There is considerable numbers of chromosomal abnormalities in embryos generated in vitro which cause in vitro fertilization failure and it seems that morphological characterization of embryos is not a suitable method for choosing the embryos without these abnormalities.

Citing Articles

Correlation among blastocoel fluid DNA level, apoptotic genes expression and preimplantation aneuploidy.

Khajehoseini F, Noormohammadi Z, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Yazdi P, Gourabi H, Pazhoomand R Reprod Fertil. 2025; 6(1).

PMID: 39869096 PMC: 11825185. DOI: 10.1530/RAF-24-0097.

Evaluation of utilization of amplified blastocoel fluid DNA gel electrophoresis band intensity as an additional minimally invasive approach in embryo selection: A cross-sectional study.

Khajehoseini F, Noormohammadi Z, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Gourabi H, Pazhoomand R, Hosseinishenatal S Int J Reprod Biomed. 2025; 22(11):907-918.

PMID: 39866585 PMC: 11757668. DOI: 10.18502/ijrm.v22i11.17823.

Optimizing evaluation of endometrial receptivity in recurrent pregnancy loss: a preliminary investigation integrating radiomics from multimodal ultrasound via machine learning.

Yan S, Xiong F, Xin Y, Zhou Z, Liu W Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024; 15:1380829.

PMID: 39229381 PMC: 11368730. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1380829.

Unlocking the Potential of Assisted Hatching in Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Narrative Review.

Deotalu S, More A, Karadbhajne P, Chaudhari K Cureus. 2024; 16(5):e60736.

PMID: 38903279 PMC: 11187726. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.60736.

TEffect of Single Embryo Blastomere Biopsy from Human Frozen Embryos on Assisted Reproductive Outcomes.

Aghajani S, Salehzadeh A, Ghasemian F, Mehrafza M, Hosseini A Cell J. 2022; 24(10):628-636.

PMID: 36259481 PMC: 9617026. DOI: 10.22074/cellj.2022.8328.

References

Yang Z, Liu J, Collins G, Salem S, Liu X, Lyle S . Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012; 5(1):24. PMC: 3403960. DOI: 10.1186/1755-8166-5-24. View

Munne S . Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 12(2):234-53. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60866-8. View

Pehlivan T, Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Romero J, Remohi J, Simon C . Impact of preimplantation genetic diagnosis on IVF outcome in implantation failure patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003; 6(2):232-7. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61715-4. View

Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Daphnis D, Goodall N, Mania A, Griffiths T . Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod. 2010; 26(2):480-90. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq344. View

Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman C . Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013; 26(5):477-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.006. View

Chamayou S, Patrizio P, Storaci G, Tomaselli V, Alecci C, Ragolia C . The use of morphokinetic parameters to select all embryos with full capacity to implant. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013; 30(5):703-10. PMC: 3663978. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-013-9992-2. View

Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Mir P, Mateu E, Peinado V, Milan M . Use of array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) for embryo assessment: clinical results. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(4):1044-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.094. View

Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Thornton S . Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013; 27(2):140-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.04.013. View

Gianaroli L, Magli M, Ferraretti A, Lappi M, Borghi E, Ermini B . Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement. Hum Reprod. 2006; 22(1):241-9. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del334. View

10.

Delhanty J . Mechanisms of aneuploidy induction in human oogenesis and early embryogenesis. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005; 111(3-4):237-44. DOI: 10.1159/000086894. View

11.

Stensen M, Tanbo T, Storeng R, Byholm T, Fedorcsak P . Routine morphological scoring systems in assisted reproduction treatment fail to reflect age-related impairment of oocyte and embryo quality. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 21(1):118-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.03.018. View

12.

Wells D, Delhanty J . Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod. 2000; 6(11):1055-62. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/6.11.1055. View

13.

Kilani Z, Magli M, Qaddomi E, Ferraretti A, Shaban M, Crippa A . Chromosome analysis in embryos from young patients with previous parity. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014; 29(3):333-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.04.018. View

14.

Dondorp W, De Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B . ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: sex selection for non-medical reasons. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(6):1448-54. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det109. View

15.

Fragouli E, Katz-Jaffe M, Alfarawati S, Stevens J, Colls P, Goodall N . Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2009; 94(3):875-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.04.053. View

16.

Vanneste E, Voet T, Le Caignec C, Ampe M, Konings P, Melotte C . Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat Med. 2009; 15(5):577-83. DOI: 10.1038/nm.1924. View

17.

Eaton J, Hacker M, Harris D, Thornton K, Penzias A . Assessment of day-3 morphology and euploidy for individual chromosomes in embryos that develop to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2008; 91(6):2432-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.008. View

18.

Munne S, Chen S, Colls P, Garrisi J, Zheng X, Cekleniak N . Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007; 14(5):628-34. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61057-7. View

19.

Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J . Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril. 2014; 102(5):1287-1294.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.738. View

20.

Patrizio P, Bianchi V, Lalioti M, Gerasimova T, Sakkas D . High rate of biological loss in assisted reproduction: it is in the seed, not in the soil. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007; 14(1):92-5. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60769-9. View