nach oben

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Erschienen in:

18.08.2023 | Review

Factors associated with embryo mosaicism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: A Cascales, R Morales, A Castro, JA Ortiz, B Lledo, J Ten, A Bernabeu, R Bernabeu

Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Ausgabe 10/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Evaluate which factors are involved in the increased rate of mosaicism in embryos.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. After an exhaustive search of the literature, a total of seven papers were included in the analysis. In addition, data collected from IVF cycles performed in our fertility clinic were also analysed. Day of biopsy, embryo quality, maternal and paternal age and seminal quality were the chosen factors to be studied.

Results

The results of the meta-analysis show that neither embryo quality nor seminal quality were related to mosaic embryo rate (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.94–1.28 and OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.87–1.37, respectively). A positive association was observed for the variable “biopsy day” with embryos biopsied at day 6 or 7 having the highest rate of mosaicism (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01–1.11). In opposite to what happens with aneuploidy rate, which increases with maternal age, embryo mosaicism is higher in younger women (<34 years) rather than in older ones (≥34 years) (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.92–0.98). However, for the “paternal age” factor, no association with mosaicism was found (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90–1.21).

Conclusions

With the present study, we can conclude that the factors related to the presence of mosaicism in embryos are the embryo biopsy day and maternal age. The rest of the studied factors showed no significant relationship with mosaicism. These results are of great importance as knowing the possible causes leading to mosaicism helps to improve the clinical results of reproductive treatments.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2089–90. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1500421.CrossRefPubMed

Webster A, Schuh M. Mechanisms of aneuploidy in human eggs. Trends Cell Biol. 2017;27:55–68.CrossRefPubMed

Taylor TH, Gitlin SA, Patrick JL, Crain JL, Wilson JM, Griffin DK. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(4):571–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu016.CrossRefPubMed

Alksere B, Grinfelde I, Kornejeva L, Dzalbs A, Vedmedovska N, Kovalova I, Conka U, Andersone S, Krasucka S, Blumberga A, Berzina D, Fodina V. The outcomes after transfers of embryos with chromosomal mosaicism: a single reproductive medicine center experience at IVF Riga clinic. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020;36(sup1):53–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1816719.CrossRefPubMed

Popovic M, Dhaenens L, Boel A, Menten B, Heindryckx B. Chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts: the ultimate diagnostic dilemma. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26:313–34.CrossRefPubMed

Zhang YX, Chen JJ, Nabu S, Yeung QSY, Li Y, Tan JH, Suksalak W, Chanchamroen S, Quangkananurug W, Wong PS, Chung JPW, Choy KW. The pregnancy outcome of mosaic embryo transfer: a prospective multicenter study and meta-analysis. Genes. 2020;11(9):973. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11090973.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Coll L, Parriego M, Mateo S, García-Monclús S, Rodríguez I, Boada M, Coroleu B, Polyzos NP, Vidal F, Veiga A. Prevalence, types and possible factors influencing mosaicism in IVF blastocysts: results from a single setting. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42(1):55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.025.CrossRefPubMed

Cram DS, Leigh D, Handyside A, Rechitsky L, Xu K, Harton G, Grifo J, Rubio C, Fragouli E, Kahraman S, Forman E, Katz-Jaffe M, Tempest H, Thornhill A, Strom C, Escudero T, Qiao J, Munne S, Simpson JL, Kuliev A. PGDIS position statement on the transfer of Mosaic Embryos 2019. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39(Suppl 1):e1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.06.012.CrossRefPubMed

Swain JE. Controversies in ART: can the IVF laboratory influence preimplantation embryo aneuploidy? Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39:599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.06.009.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Capalbo A, Poli M, Rienzi L, Girardi L, Patassini C, Fabiani M, Cimadomo D, Benini F, Farcomeni A, Cuzzi J, Rubio C, Albani E, Sacchi L, Vaiarelli A, Figliuzzi M, Findikli N, Coban O, Boynukalin FK, Vogel I, et al. Mosaic human preimplantation embryos and their developmental potential in a prospective, non-selection clinical trial. Am J Hum Genet. 2021;108(12):2238–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.11.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Martín Á, Rodrigo L, Beltrán D, Meseguer M, Rubio C, Mercader A, de Los Santos MJ. The morphokinetic signature of mosaic embryos: evidence in support of their own genetic identity. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(1):165–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.12.031.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lledó B, Morales R, Ortiz JA, Blanca H, Ten J, Llácer J, Bernabeu R. Implantation potential of mosaic embryos. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2017;63(3):206–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/19396368.2017.1296045.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Morbeck DE, Baumann NA, Oglesbee D. Composition of single-step media used for human embryo culture. Fertil Steril. 2017:107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.007.

14.

Katz-Jaffe M, Parks J, McReynolds S, Henry L, Schoolcraft WB. Chromosomal mosaicism is impacted by compromised embryo culture conditions. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:e431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.037.CrossRef

15.

Monahan D, Harton G, Griffin D, Angle M, Smikle C. Clinical comparison of two PGT-A platforms utilizing different thresholds to determine ploidy status. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39:e27–e28.2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.04.055.CrossRef

16.

Rodrigo L, Clemente-Císcar M, Campos-Galindo I, Peinado V, Simón C, Rubio C. Characteristics of the IVF cycle that contribute to the incidence of mosaicism. Genes. 2020;11(10):1151. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11101151.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

ESHRE Working Group on Chromosomal Mosaicism and others. ESHRE survey results and good practice recommendations on managing chromosomal mosaicism. Human Reproduction Open. 2022(4):hoac044. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac044.

18.

Victor AR, Tyndall JC, Brake AJ, Lepkowsky LT, Murphy AE, Griffin DK, McCoy RC, Barnes FL, Zouves CG, Viotti M. One hundred mosaic embryos transferred prospectively in a single clinic: exploring when and why they result in healthy pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(2):280–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.10.019.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Zore T, Kroener LL, Wang CM, Liu L, Buyalos R, Hubert G, Shamonki M. Transfer of embryos with segmental mosaicism is associated with a significant reduction in live-birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:69–76.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Zhang L, Wei D, Zhu Y, Gao Y, Yan J, Chen ZJ. Rates of live birth after mosaic embryo transfer compared with euploid embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(1):165–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1322-2.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.CrossRef

23.

Ardoy M, Caderón G, Cuadros J, Figueroa MJ, Herrer R, Moreno JM, et al. Criterios ASEBIR de valoración morfológica de oocitos, embriones tempranos y blastocistos humanos. Cuadernos de Embriología Clínica. 2008;II:1–59.

24.

Björndahl L, Kirkman Brown J. The sixth edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen: ensuring quality and standardization in a basic examination of human ejaculates. Fertil Steril. 2022;117(2):246–51.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Domenech JM. Macro !MAR for SPSS Statistics. Meta-Analysis OR, RR, RD, IR, ID, B & MD Combined [computer program].V2012.03.23. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; 2012.

26.

Minasi MG, Colasante A, Riccio T, Ruberti A, Casciani V, Scarselli F, Spinella F, Fiorentino F, Varricchio MT, Greco E. Correlation between aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluation and morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts: a consecutive case series study. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(10):2245–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew183.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, Nagy ZP, Ubaldi FM. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1173–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu033.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ortiz JA, Morales R, Lledó B, Vicente JA, González J, García-Hernández EM, Cascales A, Ten J, Bernabeu A, Bernabeu R. Application of machine learning to predict aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from in vitro fertilization cycles. AJOG Glob Rep. 2022;2(4):100103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Huang QX, Wang ZH, Huang WJ, Mao LH, Lin CL, Chen GY, Wang CX, Chen ZB, Lin YL, He LY, Liu Y. Factors influencing mosaicism: a retrospective analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45(3):491–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.04.020.CrossRefPubMed

30.

ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Fertility and ageing. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11:261–76.CrossRef

31.

Babariya D, Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. The incidence and origin of segmental aneuploidy in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(12):2549–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex324.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Barash OO, Hinckley MD, Rosenbluth EM, Ivani KA, Weckstein LN. High gonadotropin dosage does not affect euploidy and pregnancy rates in IVF PGS cycles with single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(11):2209–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex299.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Munné S, Cohen J. Advanced maternal age patients benefit from preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1145–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.015.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Nakhuda G, Jing C, Butler R, Guimond C, Hitkari J, Taylor E, Tallon N, Yuzpe A. Frequencies of chromosome-specific mosaicisms in trophoectoderm biopsies detected by next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(5):857–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.011.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Munné S, Grifo J, Wells D. Mosaicism: “survival of the fittest” versus “no embryo left behind”. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(5):1146–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.016.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Keefe DL. Telomeres and genomic instability during early development. Eur J Med Genet. 2020;63(2):103638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.03.002.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Keefe DL, Liu L. Telomeres and reproductive aging. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2009;21(1):10–4. https://doi.org/10.1071/rd08229.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Blackburn EH. Structure and function of telomeres. Nature. 1991;350(6319):569–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/350569a0.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Carrasquillo RJ, Kohn TP, Cinnioglu C, Rubio C, Simon C, Ramasamy R, Al-Asmar N. Advanced paternal age does not affect embryo aneuploidy following blastocyst biopsy in egg donor cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(10):2039–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01549-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Dviri M, Madjunkova S, Koziarz A, Antes R, Abramov R, Mashiach J, Moskovtsev S, Kuznyetsova I, Librach C. Is there a correlation between paternal age and aneuploidy rate? An analysis of 3,118 embryos derived from young egg donors. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(2):293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.03.034.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Pino V, Sanz A, Valdés N, Crosby J, Mackenna A. The effects of aging on semen parameters and sperm DNA fragmentation. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2020;24(1):82–6. https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20190058.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Tarozzi N, Nadalini M, Lagalla C, Coticchio G, Zacà C, Borini A. Male factor infertility impacts the rate of mosaic blastocysts in cycles of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(10):2047–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01584-w.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Kahraman S, Sahin Y, Yelke H, Kumtepe Y, Tufekci MA, Yapan CC, Yesil M, Cetinkaya M. High rates of aneuploidy, mosaicism and abnormal morphokinetic development in cases with low sperm concentration. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(3):629–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01673-w.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Factors associated with embryo mosaicism: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von: A Cascales
R Morales
A Castro
JA Ortiz
B Lledo
J Ten
A Bernabeu
R Bernabeu
Publikationsdatum: 18.08.2023
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Ausgabe 10/2023
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02914-9

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Erhöhte Mortalität bei postpartalem Brustkrebs

07.05.2024 Mammakarzinom Nachrichten

Auch für Trägerinnen von BRCA-Varianten gilt: Erkranken sie fünf bis zehn Jahre nach der letzten Schwangerschaft an Brustkrebs, ist das Sterberisiko besonders hoch.

Menopausale Hormontherapie für Frauen über 65?

07.05.2024 Klimakterium und Menopause Nachrichten

In den USA erhalten nicht wenige Frauen auch noch im Alter über 65 eine menopausale Hormontherapie. Welche positiven und negativen gesundheitlichen Konsequenzen daraus möglicherweise resultieren, wurde anhand von Versicherungsdaten analysiert.

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

07.05.2024 Medizinstudium Nachrichten

Extreme Arbeitsverdichtung und kaum Supervision: Dr. Andrea Martini, Sprecherin des Bündnisses Junge Ärztinnen und Ärzte (BJÄ) über den Frust des ärztlichen Nachwuchses und die Vorteile des Rucksack-Modells.

Nodal-negativ nach neoadjuvanter Chemo: Axilladissektion verzichtbar?

03.05.2024 Mammakarzinom Nachrichten

Wenn bei Mammakarzinomen durch eine neoadjuvante Chemotherapie ein Downstaging von nodal-positiv zu nodal-negativ gelingt, scheint es auch ohne Axilladissektion nur selten zu axillären Rezidiven zu kommen.

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Bildnachweise

Digitale Mammographien links in kraniokaudaler Projektion./© Weigel, S. et al. / all rights reserved Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, Frau klebt Pflaster auf den Oberschenkel/© svetikd / Getty Images / iStock (Symbolbild mit Fotomodell), Medizinische Fachangestellte sitzt erschöpft auf der Treppe/© Courtney Haas / peopleimages.com /stock.adobe.com (Symbolbild mit Fotomodell), Junge Frau untersucht Gewebeprobe/© luchschenF / Stock.adobe.com (Symbolbild mit Fotomodell)

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2023

Evaluation of live birth rates and perinatal outcomes following two sequential vitrification/warming events at the zygote and blastocyst stages

The widening gap between perceptions of gamete and embryo quality and reality

Conventional IVF is feasible in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

Infertility clinics and acupuncture: a qualitative web-based study