nach oben

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Erschienen in:

01.09.2011 | Genetics

Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?

verfasst von: Kim Dao Ly, Ashok Agarwal, Zsolt Peter Nagy

Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Ausgabe 9/2011

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Despite an ongoing debate over its efficacy, preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is increasingly being used to detect numerical chromosomal abnormalities in embryos to improve implantation rates after IVF. The main indications for the use of PGS in IVF treatments include advanced maternal age, repeated implantation failure, and recurrent pregnancy loss. The success of PGS is highly dependent on technical competence, embryo culture quality, and the presence of mosaicism in preimplantation embryos. Today, cleavage stage biopsy is the most commonly used method for screening preimplantation embryos for aneuploidy. However, blastocyst biopsy is rapidly becoming the more preferred method due to a decreased likelihood of mosaicism and an increase in the amount of DNA available for testing. Instead of using 9 to 12 chromosome FISH, a 24 chromosome detection by aCGH or SNP microarray will be used. Thus, it is advised that before attempting to perform PGS and expecting any benefit, extended embryo culture towards day 5/6 should be established and proven and the clinical staff should demonstrate competence with routine competency assessments. A properly designed randomized control trial is needed to test the potential benefits of these new developments.

Handyside AH et al. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344(6268):768–70.PubMedCrossRef

Verlinsky Y et al. Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 1990;5(7):826–9.PubMed

Grifo JA et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In situ hybridization as a tool for analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116(4):393–7.PubMed

Xu K et al. First unaffected pregnancy using preimplantation genetic diagnosis for sickle cell anemia. JAMA. 1999;281(18):1701–6.PubMedCrossRef

Munne S et al. Assessment of numeric abnormalities of X, Y, 18, and 16 chromosomes in preimplantation human embryos before transfer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172(4 Pt 1):1191–9. discussion 1199–201.PubMedCrossRef

Munne S et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7(1):91–7.PubMedCrossRef

Verlinsky Y, Kuliev A. Preimplantation diagnosis for diseases with genetic predisposition and nondisease testing. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2002;2(5):509–13.PubMedCrossRef

Verlinsky Y et al. Preimplantation diagnosis for Fanconi anemia combined with HLA matching. JAMA. 2001;285(24):3130–3.PubMedCrossRef

Griffin DK. The incidence, origin, and etiology of aneuploidy. Int Rev Cytol. 1996;167:263–96.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Munne S et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):628–34.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Sandalinas M et al. Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(9):1954–8.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Alfarawati S et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):520–4.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Li M et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization reanalysis of day-6 human blastocysts diagnosed with aneuploidy on day 3. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1395–400.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Munne S. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(2):234–53.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Baruch S, Kaufman D, Hudson KL. Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(5):1053–8.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Goossens V et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection IX: cycles from January to December 2006 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2007. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(8):1786–810.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Munne S et al. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(12):2185–91.PubMed

18.

Munne S et al. The use of first polar bodies for preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(4):1014–20.PubMed

19.

Verlinsky Y et al. Birth of healthy children after preimplantation diagnosis of common aneuploidies by polar body fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis. Preimplantation Genetics Group. Fertil Steril. 1996;66(1):126–9.PubMed

20.

Munne S et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly reduces pregnancy loss in infertile couples: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):326–32.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Munne S et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(9):2191–9.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Gianaroli L et al. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(5):837–44.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Munne S et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(2):331–5.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Colls P et al. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using “no result rescue”. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(1):53–61.PubMedCrossRef

25.

McArthur SJ et al. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(6):1628–36.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Schoolcraft WB, et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2009

27.

Adamson D, Baker V. Multiple births from assisted reproductive technologies: a challenge that must be met. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(3):517–22. discussion 526.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Tiitinen A et al. Elective single embryo transfer: the value of cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(6):1140–4.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Dhont M. Single-embryo transfer. Semin Reprod Med. 2001;19(3):251–8.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Varghese AC, Nagy ZP, Agarwal A. Current trends, biological foundations and future prospects of oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(1):126–40.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Stillman RJ et al. Elective single embryo transfer: a 6-year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocyst transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(6):1895–906.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Leese B, Denton J. Attitudes towards single embryo transfer, twin and higher order pregnancies in patients undergoing infertility treatment: a review. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2010;13(1):28–34.CrossRef

33.

Pinborg A et al. Morbidity in a Danish national cohort of 472 IVF/ICSI twins, 1132 non-IVF/ICSI twins and 634 IVF/ICSI singletons: health-related and social implications for the children and their families. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(6):1234–43.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Stromberg B et al. Neurological sequelae in children born after in-vitro fertilisation: a population-based study. Lancet. 2002;359(9305):461–5.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou I, Nardo LG. The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2009

36.

Munne S et al. Differences in chromosome susceptibility to aneuploidy and survival to first trimester. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8(1):81–90.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Silber S et al. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(1):30–8.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Platteau P et al. Comparison of the aneuploidy frequency in embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction in obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermic men. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(7):1570–4.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Donoso P et al. Does PGD for aneuploidy screening change the selection of embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction in obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermic men? Hum Reprod. 2006;21(9):2390–5.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Munne S et al. Wide range of chromosome abnormalities in the embryos of young egg donors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(3):340–6.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Jones KT. Meiosis in oocytes: predisposition to aneuploidy and its increased incidence with age. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(2):143–58.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Oliver TR et al. New insights into human nondisjunction of chromosome 21 in oocytes. PLoS Genet. 2008;4(3):e1000033.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Kuliev A, Verlinsky Y. Current features of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;5(3):294–9.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Angell R. First-meiotic-division nondisjunction in human oocytes. Am J Hum Genet. 1997;61(1):23–32.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Hunt PA, Hassold TJ. Sex matters in meiosis. Science. 2002;296(5576):2181–3.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Angell RR. Predivision in human oocytes at meiosis I: a mechanism for trisomy formation in man. Hum Genet. 1991;86(4):383–7.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Vialard F et al. Evidence of a high proportion of premature unbalanced separation of sister chromatids in the first polar bodies of women of advanced age. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(5):1172–8.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Rosenbusch BE, Schneider M. Cytogenetic analysis of human oocytes remaining unfertilized after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):302–7.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Fragouli E et al. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of human oocytes and polar bodies. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(9):2319–28.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Dailey T et al. Association between nondisjunction and maternal age in meiosis-II human oocytes. Am J Hum Genet. 1996;59(1):176–84.PubMed

51.

Delhanty JD. Mechanisms of aneuploidy induction in human oogenesis and early embryogenesis. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;111(3–4):237–44.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Nagy ZP. Sperm centriole disfunction and sperm immotility. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2000;166(1):59–62.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Sathananthan AH et al. Centrioles in the beginning of human development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;88(11):4806–10.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Obasaju M et al. Sperm quality may adversely affect the chromosome constitution of embryos that result from intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(6):1113–5.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Leduc F, Nkoma GB, Boissonneault G. Spermiogenesis and DNA repair: a possible etiology of human infertility and genetic disorders. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2008;54(1):3–10.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Munne S et al. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(2):382–91.PubMed

57.

Marquez C et al. Chromosome abnormalities in 1255 cleavage-stage human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2000;1(1):17–26.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Munne S et al. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod. 1994;51(3):373–9.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Wells D et al. First clinical application of comparative genomic hybridization and polar body testing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(3):543–9.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Voullaire L et al. Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet. 2000;106(2):210–7.PubMedCrossRef

61.

Munne S et al. Self-correction of chromosomally abnormal embryos in culture and implications for stem cell production. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1328–34.PubMedCrossRef

62.

Powis Z, Erickson RP. Uniparental disomy and the phenotype of mosaic trisomy 20: a new case and review of the literature. J Appl Genet. 2009;50(3):293–6.PubMedCrossRef

63.

Rieubland C et al. Two cases of trisomy 16 mosaicism ascertained postnatally. Am J Med Genet A. 2009;149A(7):1523–8.PubMedCrossRef

64.

Lightfoot DA et al. The fate of mosaic aneuploid embryos during mouse development. Dev Biol. 2006;289(2):384–94.PubMedCrossRef

65.

Kanka J et al. Identification of differentially expressed mRNAs in bovine preimplantation embryos. Zygote. 2003;11(1):43–52.PubMedCrossRef

66.

Lucifero D, Chaillet JR, Trasler JM. Potential significance of genomic imprinting defects for reproduction and assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10(1):3–18.PubMedCrossRef

67.

Ledbetter DH, Engel E. Uniparental disomy in humans: development of an imprinting map and its implications for prenatal diagnosis. Hum Mol Genet. 1995;4 Spec No:1757–64.PubMed

68.

Coonen E et al. Anaphase lagging mainly explains chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(2):316–24.PubMedCrossRef

69.

Spence JE et al. Uniparental disomy as a mechanism for human genetic disease. Am J Hum Genet. 1988;42(2):217–26.PubMed

70.

Barbash-Hazan S, et al. Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2008

71.

Northrop LE et al. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16(8):590–600.PubMedCrossRef

72.

Fragouli E et al. Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(11):2596–608.PubMedCrossRef

73.

Weghofer A et al. Lack of association between polycystic ovary syndrome and embryonic aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(4):900–5.PubMedCrossRef

74.

Gogusev J et al. Detection of DNA copy number changes in human endometriosis by comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet. 1999;105(5):444–51.PubMedCrossRef

75.

Massie JA et al. Ovarian stimulation and the risk of aneuploid conceptions. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):970–2.PubMedCrossRef

76.

Terada Y, et al. Different embryonic development after blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, observed by time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril. 2009

77.

Baart EB et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(4):980–8.PubMedCrossRef

78.

Weghofer A, et al. The impact of LH-containing gonadotropin stimulation on euploidy rates in preimplantation embryos: antagonist cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008

79.

Weghofer A et al. The impact of LH-containing gonadotropins on diploidy rates in preimplantation embryos: long protocol stimulation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(3):499–503.PubMedCrossRef

80.

Chappel SC, Howles C. Reevaluation of the roles of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone in the ovulatory process. Hum Reprod. 1991;6(9):1206–12.PubMed

81.

Fleming R et al. Effects of profound suppression of luteinizing hormone during ovarian stimulation on follicular activity, oocyte and embryo function in cycles stimulated with purified follicle stimulating hormone. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(7):1788–92.PubMedCrossRef

82.

Andersen AN, Devroey P, Arce JC. Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(12):3217–27.PubMedCrossRef

83.

Balasch J et al. Suppression of LH during ovarian stimulation: analysing threshold values and effects on ovarian response and the outcome of assisted reproduction in down-regulated women stimulated with recombinant FSH. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(8):1636–43.PubMedCrossRef

84.

Barrenetxea G et al. Ovarian response and pregnancy outcome in poor-responder women: a randomized controlled trial on the effect of luteinizing hormone supplementation on in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(3):546–53.PubMedCrossRef

85.

Emery BR et al. In vitro oocyte maturation and subsequent delayed fertilization is associated with increased embryo aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(4):1027–9.PubMedCrossRef

86.

Bielanska M, Tan SL, Ao A. Different probe combinations for assessment of postzygotic chromosomal imbalances in human embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(4):177–82.PubMedCrossRef

87.

Velilla E, Escudero T, Munne S. Blastomere fixation techniques and risk of misdiagnosis for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;4(3):210–7.PubMedCrossRef

88.

Joris H et al. Comparison of the results of human embryo biopsy and outcome of PGD after zona drilling using acid Tyrode medium or a laser. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(9):1896–902.PubMedCrossRef

89.

Chatzimeletiou K et al. Comparison of effects of zona drilling by non-contact infrared laser or acid Tyrode’s on the development of human biopsied embryos as revealed by blastomere viability, cytoskeletal analysis and molecular cytogenetics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11(6):697–710.PubMedCrossRef

90.

Jones AE et al. Comparison of laser-assisted hatching and acidified Tyrode’s hatching by evaluation of blastocyst development rates in sibling embryos: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):487–91.PubMedCrossRef

91.

Dawson A, Griesinger G, Diedrich K. Screening oocytes by polar body biopsy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(1):104–9.PubMedCrossRef

92.

Hansis C et al. Assessment of beta-HCG, beta-LH mRNA and ploidy in individual human blastomeres. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;5(2):156–61.PubMedCrossRef

93.

Gardner RL. Experimental analysis of second cleavage in the mouse. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3178–89.PubMedCrossRef

94.

Gardner RL, Davies TJ. The basis and significance of pre-patterning in mammals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;358(1436):1331–8. discussion 1338–9.PubMedCrossRef

95.

Gardner RL, Davies TJ. Is the plane of first cleavage related to the point of sperm entry in the mouse? Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;6(2):157–60.PubMedCrossRef

96.

Goossens V et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection VIII: cycles from January to December 2005 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2006. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2629–45.PubMedCrossRef

97.

Harper JC et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection X: cycles from January to December 2007 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2008. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(11):2685–707.PubMedCrossRef

98.

Harton GL et al. ESHRE PGD consortium/embryology special interest group–best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):41–6.PubMedCrossRef

99.

Donoso P, Devroey P. PGD for aneuploidy screening: an expensive hoax? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(1):157–68.PubMedCrossRef

100.

Twisk M et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(1):CD005291

101.

Twisk M et al. No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2813–7.PubMedCrossRef

102.

Wells D. Embryo aneuploidy and the role of morphological and genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3):274–7.PubMedCrossRef

103.

Debrock S, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy of embryos after in vitro fertilization in women aged at least 35 years: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2009

104.

Checa MA et al. IVF/ICSI with or without preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy in couples without genetic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(5):273–83.PubMedCrossRef

105.

Fritz MA. Perspectives on the efficacy and indications for preimplantation genetic screening: where are we now? Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2617–21.PubMedCrossRef

106.

Cohen J, Wells D, Munne S. Removal of 2 cells from cleavage stage embryos is likely to reduce the efficacy of chromosomal tests that are used to enhance implantation rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):496–503.PubMedCrossRef

107.

Michiels A et al. The analysis of one or two blastomeres for PGD using fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(9):2396–402.PubMedCrossRef

108.

Goossens V et al. Diagnostic efficiency, embryonic development and clinical outcome after the biopsy of one or two blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(3):481–92.PubMedCrossRef

109.

Harton GL et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for amplification-based PGD. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):33–40.PubMedCrossRef

110.

Harton GL et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for fluorescence in situ hybridization-based PGD. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):25–32.PubMedCrossRef

111.

Kokkali G et al. Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia: a pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(5):1443–9.PubMedCrossRef

112.

Schoolcraft WB et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1700–6.PubMedCrossRef

113.

Magli MC et al. The combination of polar body and embryo biopsy does not affect embryo viability. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(5):1163–9.PubMedCrossRef

114.

DeUgarte CM et al. Accuracy of FISH analysis in predicting chromosomal status in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(4):1049–54.PubMedCrossRef

115.

Agerholm IE et al. Sequential FISH analysis using competitive displacement of labelled peptide nucleic acid probes for eight chromosomes in human blastomeres. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(4):1072–7.PubMedCrossRef

116.

Gutierrez-Mateo C et al. Karyotyping of human oocytes by cenM-FISH, a new 24-colour centromere-specific technique. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3395–401.PubMedCrossRef

117.

Pellestor F et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of human oocytes: advantages of a double-labeling procedure. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(4):919–22.PubMedCrossRef

118.

Yan LY, et al. Application of three-dimensional fluorescence in situ hybridization to human preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2008

119.

Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14(12):703–10.PubMedCrossRef

120.

Fragouli E, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2009

121.

Pellestor F et al. Mechanisms of non-disjunction in human female meiosis: the co-existence of two modes of malsegregation evidenced by the karyotyping of 1397 in-vitro unfertilized oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(8):2134–45.PubMedCrossRef

122.

Sandalinas M, Marquez C, Munne S. Spectral karyotyping of fresh, non-inseminated oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod. 2002;8(6):580–5.PubMedCrossRef

123.

Gutierrez-Mateo C et al. Aneuploidy study of human oocytes first polar body comparative genomic hybridization and metaphase II fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2859–68.PubMedCrossRef

124.

Gutierrez-Mateo C et al. Reliability of comparative genomic hybridization to detect chromosome abnormalities in first polar bodies and metaphase II oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(9):2118–25.PubMedCrossRef

125.

Wilton L et al. Preimplantation aneuploidy screening using comparative genomic hybridization or fluorescence in situ hybridization of embryos from patients with recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(4):860–8.PubMedCrossRef

126.

Keskintepe L, Sher G, Keskintepe M. Reproductive oocyte/embryo genetic analysis: comparison between fluorescence in-situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15(3):303–9.PubMedCrossRef

127.

Hellani A et al. Successful pregnancies after application of array-comparative genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(6):841–7.PubMedCrossRef

128.

Rius M et al. Reliability of short comparative genomic hybridization in fibroblasts and blastomeres for a comprehensive aneuploidy screening: first clinical application. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(7):1824–35.PubMedCrossRef

129.

Gutierrez-Mateo C, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2010

130.

Handyside AH et al. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet. 2010;47(10):651–8.PubMedCrossRef

131.

Treff NR et al. Accurate single cell 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening using whole genome amplification and single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2017–21.PubMedCrossRef

132.

Johnson DS et al. Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(4):1066–75.PubMedCrossRef

133.

Bonduelle M et al. Prenatal testing in ICSI pregnancies: incidence of chromosomal anomalies in 1586 karyotypes and relation to sperm parameters. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(10):2600–14.PubMedCrossRef

134.

Sanchez-Castro M et al. Prognostic value of sperm fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis over PGD. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(6):1516–21.PubMedCrossRef

135.

Kuznyetsov V et al. Duplication of the sperm genome by human androgenetic embryo production: towards testing the paternal genome prior to fertilization. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(4):504–14.PubMedCrossRef

136.

Lewis-Jones I et al. Sperm chromosomal abnormalities are linked to sperm morphologic deformities. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(1):212–5.PubMedCrossRef

137.

Dubey A et al. The influence of sperm morphology on preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles outcome. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(6):1665–9.PubMedCrossRef

138.

Maille L et al. Pronuclear morphology differs between women more than 38 and women less than 30 years of age. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(3):367–73.PubMedCrossRef

139.

Gianaroli L et al. Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):241–9.PubMedCrossRef

140.

Noyes N et al. Embryo biopsy: the fate of abnormal pronuclear embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(6):782–8.PubMedCrossRef

141.

Rosenbusch B et al. Cytogenetic analysis of giant oocytes and zygotes to assess their relevance for the development of digynic triploidy. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(9):2388–93.PubMedCrossRef

142.

Edwards RG, Beard HK. Oocyte polarity and cell determination in early mammalian embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 1997;3(10):863–905.PubMedCrossRef

143.

Balaban B et al. Pronuclear morphology predicts embryo development and chromosome constitution. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8(6):695–700.PubMedCrossRef

144.

Munne S, Tomkin G, Cohen J. Selection of embryos by morphology is less effective than by a combination of aneuploidy testing and morphology observations. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(3):943–5.PubMedCrossRef

145.

Holte J et al. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(2):548–57.PubMedCrossRef

146.

Magli MC et al. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):534–41.PubMedCrossRef

147.

Moayeri SE et al. Day-3 embryo morphology predicts euploidy among older subjects. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(1):118–23.PubMedCrossRef

148.

McKenzie LJ et al. Nuclear chromosomal localization in human preimplantation embryos: correlation with aneuploidy and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(10):2231–7.PubMedCrossRef

149.

Harper JC et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection V: cycles from January to December 2002 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2003. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(1):3–21.PubMedCrossRef

150.

Harton G et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for organization of a PGD centre for PGD/preimplantation genetic screening. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):14–24.PubMedCrossRef

151.

Basille C et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: state of the art. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;145(1):9–13.PubMedCrossRef

152.

Thornhill AR, Snow K. Molecular diagnostics in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Mol Diagn. 2002;4(1):11–29.PubMedCrossRef

153.

Thornhill AR et al. ESHRE PGD consortium ‘best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)’. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):35–48.PubMedCrossRef

154.

Guidelines for good practice in PGD: programme requirements and laboratory quality assurance. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16(1):134–47

155.

Staessen C et al. Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2818–25.PubMedCrossRef

156.

Hardarson T et al. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2806–12.PubMedCrossRef

157.

Rubio C et al. The importance of good practice in preimplantation genetic screening: critical viewpoints. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(8):2045–7.PubMedCrossRef

158.

Knoppers BM, Bordet S, Isasi RM. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an overview of socio-ethical and legal considerations. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2006;7:201–21.PubMedCrossRef

159.

Fasouliotis SJ, Schenker JG. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis principles and ethics. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(8):2238–45.PubMedCrossRef

160.

Collins JA et al. An estimate of the cost of in vitro fertilization services in the United States in 1995. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(3):538–45.PubMed

161.

Collins J. Cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization. Semin Reprod Med. 2001;19(3):279–89.PubMedCrossRef

162.

Mersereau JE, Plunkett BA, Cedars MI. Preimplantation genetic screening in older women: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):592–8.PubMedCrossRef

163.

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 430: preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(3):766–7

164.

Harper J et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? a position statement from the ESHRE PGD consortium steering committee. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(4):821–3.PubMedCrossRef

165.

Staessen C et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2849–58.PubMedCrossRef

166.

Jansen RP et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(7):1476–8.PubMedCrossRef

167.

Mastenbroek S et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(1):9–17.PubMedCrossRef

168.

Munne S, Wells D, Cohen J. Technology requirements for preimplantation genetic diagnosis to improve assisted reproduction outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2009

169.

Scott RT, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial demonstrating significantly increased clinical pregnancy rates following 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening: biopsy and analysis on day 5 with fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(S2)

Titel: Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?
verfasst von: Kim Dao Ly
Ashok Agarwal
Zsolt Peter Nagy
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2011
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Ausgabe 9/2011
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9608-7

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

23.04.2024 | Medikamente in Schwangerschaft und Stillzeit | Nachrichten

Update Gynäkologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

Harnwegsinfektprophylaxe: Es geht auch ohne Antibiotika

Update Gynäkologie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2011

Feasibility and results of a modified intrafollicular insemination technique for treating primary infertility

Melatonin improves the oocyte and the embryo in IVF patients with sleep disturbances, but does not improve the sleeping problems

Protein tyrosine phosphatase non-receptor type 14 is a novel sperm-motility biomarker

Successful extracorporeal mature oocyte harvesting after laparoscopic oophorectomy following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for the purpose of fertility preservation in a patient with borderline ovarian tumor

Women with high telomerase activity in luteinised granulosa cells have a higher pregnancy rate during in vitro fertilisation treatment

Deconstructing a path to reconstructing reproductive organs

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

Harnwegsinfektprophylaxe: Es geht auch ohne Antibiotika

Update Gynäkologie