Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) Reveals High Levels of Chromosomal Errors in In Vivo-Derived Pig Embryos, with an Increased Incidence When Produced In Vitro

Overview

Journal Cells

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Biochemistry
Biophysics
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology

Date 2023 Mar 11

PMID 36899925

Authors

Reina Jochems

Carla Canedo-Ribeiro

Giuseppe Silvestri

Martijn F L Derks

Hanne Hamland

Louisa J Zak

Egbert F Knol

Alan H Handyside

Eli Grindflek

Darren K Griffin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is widespread, but controversial, in humans and improves pregnancy and live birth rates in cattle. In pigs, it presents a possible solution to improve in vitro embryo production (IVP), however, the incidence and origin of chromosomal errors remains under-explored. To address this, we used single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based PGT-A algorithms in 101 in vivo-derived (IVD) and 64 IVP porcine embryos. More errors were observed in IVP vs. IVD blastocysts (79.7% vs. 13.6% < 0.001). In IVD embryos, fewer errors were found at blastocyst stage compared to cleavage (4-cell) stage (13.6% vs. 40%, = 0.056). One androgenetic and two parthenogenetic embryos were also identified. Triploidy was the most common error in IVD embryos (15.8%), but only observed at cleavage, not blastocyst stage, followed by whole chromosome aneuploidy (9.9%). In IVP blastocysts, 32.8% were parthenogenetic, 25.0% (hypo-)triploid, 12.5% aneuploid, and 9.4% haploid. Parthenogenetic blastocysts arose from just three out of ten sows, suggesting a possible donor effect. The high incidence of chromosomal abnormalities in general, but in IVP embryos in particular, suggests an explanation for the low success of porcine IVP. The approaches described provide a means of monitoring technical improvements and suggest future application of PGT-A might improve embryo transfer success.

Citing Articles

In Vitro Culture of Mammalian Embryos: Is There Room for Improvement?.

Gualtieri R, De Gregorio V, Candela A, Travaglione A, Genovese V, Barbato V Cells. 2024; 13(12.

PMID: 38920627 PMC: 11202082. DOI: 10.3390/cells13120996.

Individually Cultured Bovine Zygotes Successfully Develop to the Blastocyst Stage in an Extremely Confined Environment.

Travaglione A, Candela A, De Gregorio V, Genovese V, Cimmino M, Barbato V Cells. 2024; 13(10.

PMID: 38786090 PMC: 11119105. DOI: 10.3390/cells13100868.

Morphokinetic Profiling Suggests That Rapid First Cleavage Division Accurately Predicts the Chances of Blastulation in Pig In Vitro Produced Embryos.

Hillyear L, Zak L, Beckitt T, Griffin D, Harvey S, Harvey K Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(5).

PMID: 38473168 PMC: 10930457. DOI: 10.3390/ani14050783.

References

Coppola G, Alexander B, Di Berardino D, John E, Basrur P, King W . Use of cross-species in-situ hybridization (ZOO-FISH) to assess chromosome abnormalities in day-6 in-vivo- or in-vitro-produced sheep embryos. Chromosome Res. 2007; 15(3):399-408. DOI: 10.1007/s10577-007-1125-2. View

Ulloa Ullo C, Yoshizawa M, Komoriya E, Mitsui A, Nagai T, Kikuchi K . The blastocyst production rate and incidence of chromosomal abnormalities by developmental stage in in vitro produced porcine embryos. J Reprod Dev. 2007; 54(1):22-9. DOI: 10.1262/jrd.19102. View

McCauley T, Mazza M, Didion B, Mao J, Wu G, Coppola G . Chromosomal abnormalities in Day-6, in vitro-produced pig embryos. Theriogenology. 2003; 60(8):1569-80. DOI: 10.1016/s0093-691x(03)00172-9. View

Martinez E, Martinez C, Nohalez A, Sanchez-Osorio J, Vazquez J, Roca J . Nonsurgical deep uterine transfer of vitrified, in vivo-derived, porcine embryos is as effective as the default surgical approach. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:10587. PMC: 4450750. DOI: 10.1038/srep10587. View

Tutt D, Silvestri G, Serrano-Albal M, Simmons R, Kwong W, Guven-Ates G . Analysis of bovine blastocysts indicates ovarian stimulation does not induce chromosome errors, nor discordance between inner-cell mass and trophectoderm lineages. Theriogenology. 2020; 161:108-119. PMC: 7837012. DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.11.021. View

Lagutina I, Lazzari G, Duchi R, Galli C . Developmental potential of bovine androgenetic and parthenogenetic embryos: a comparative study. Biol Reprod. 2003; 70(2):400-5. DOI: 10.1095/biolreprod.103.021972. View

Handyside A, Harton G, Mariani B, Thornhill A, Affara N, Shaw M . Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet. 2009; 47(10):651-8. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2009.069971. View

Griffin D, Brezina P, Tobler K, Zhao Y, Silvestri G, Mccoy R . The human embryonic genome is karyotypically complex, with chromosomally abnormal cells preferentially located away from the developing fetus. Hum Reprod. 2022; 38(1):180-188. PMC: 10089293. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac238. View

Coticchio G, Barrie A, Lagalla C, Borini A, Fishel S, Griffin D . Plasticity of the human preimplantation embryo: developmental dogmas, variations on themes and self-correction. Hum Reprod Update. 2021; 27(5):848-865. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmab016. View

10.

Cuello C, Gil M, Alminana C, Sanchez-Osorio J, Parrilla I, Caballero I . Vitrification of in vitro cultured porcine two-to-four cell embryos. Theriogenology. 2007; 68(2):258-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2007.05.039. View

11.

Gruhn J, Zielinska A, Shukla V, Blanshard R, Capalbo A, Cimadomo D . Chromosome errors in human eggs shape natural fertility over reproductive life span. Science. 2019; 365(6460):1466-1469. PMC: 7212007. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav7321. View

12.

Leader B, Lim H, Carabatsos M, Harrington A, Ecsedy J, Pellman D . Formin-2, polyploidy, hypofertility and positioning of the meiotic spindle in mouse oocytes. Nat Cell Biol. 2002; 4(12):921-8. DOI: 10.1038/ncb880. View

13.

Hwang I, Park M, Lee H, Kwak T, Son H, Kang J . Developmental and Degenerative Characterization of Porcine Parthenogenetic Fetuses during Early Pregnancy. Animals (Basel). 2020; 10(4). PMC: 7222715. DOI: 10.3390/ani10040622. View

14.

Franasiak J, Forman E, Hong K, Werner M, Upham K, Treff N . Aneuploidy across individual chromosomes at the embryonic level in trophectoderm biopsies: changes with patient age and chromosome structure. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014; 31(11):1501-9. PMC: 4389946. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-014-0333-x. View

15.

Raudsepp T, Chowdhary B . Chromosome Aberrations and Fertility Disorders in Domestic Animals. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2016; 4:15-43. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111239. View

16.

Silvestri G, Canedo-Ribeiro C, Serrano-Albal M, Labrecque R, Blondin P, Larmer S . Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy Improves Live Birth Rates with In Vitro Produced Bovine Embryos: A Blind Retrospective Study. Cells. 2021; 10(9). PMC: 8465548. DOI: 10.3390/cells10092284. View

17.

Attiyeh E, Diskin S, Attiyeh M, Mosse Y, Hou C, Jackson E . Genomic copy number determination in cancer cells from single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays based on quantitative genotyping corrected for aneuploidy. Genome Res. 2009; 19(2):276-83. PMC: 2652209. DOI: 10.1101/gr.075671.107. View

18.

Greco E, Litwicka K, Minasi M, Cursio E, Greco P, Barillari P . Preimplantation Genetic Testing: Where We Are Today. Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 21(12). PMC: 7352684. DOI: 10.3390/ijms21124381. View

19.

Pauerova T, Radonova L, Kovacovicova K, Novakova L, Skultety M, Anger M . Aneuploidy during the onset of mouse embryo development. Reproduction. 2020; 160(5):773-782. DOI: 10.1530/REP-20-0086. View

20.

Suzuki H, Saito Y, Kagawa N, Yang X . In vitro fertilization and polyspermy in the pig: factors affecting fertilization rates and cytoskeletal reorganization of the oocyte. Microsc Res Tech. 2003; 61(4):327-34. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.10345. View