Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30(03): 236-242
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1311526
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Comprehensive Chromosome Screening and Embryo Selection: Moving Toward Single Euploid Blastocyst Transfer

Eric J. Forman
1   Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, Morristown, New Jersey
2   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
,
Kathleen H. Hong
1   Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, Morristown, New Jersey
2   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
,
Nathan R. Treff
1   Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, Morristown, New Jersey
2   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
3   Department of Genetics, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey
,
Richard T. Scott
1   Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, Morristown, New Jersey
2   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 May 2012 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Interest in using aneuploidy screening to select embryos has been renewed with the introduction of new methods for comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) that evaluate all 24 chromosomes. With a series of experiments providing level I evidence of accuracy, reliability, safety, predictive value, and clinical efficacy, CCS-based selection of a single euploid blastocyst may provide an opportunity to finally realize the potential benefits and practical application of elective single embryo transfer. Furthermore, by incorporating CCS into research and development to control for chromosomal contribution to reproductive potential, additional biomarkers may now be more readily identified that help to further enhance the efficacy of embryo selection technology. This review describes the critical components of a valid CCS embryo selection methodology and discusses the limitations and opportunities for future routine application in reproductive medicine.

Keywords

comprehensive chromosome screening - preimplantation genetic screening - microarray - comparative genomic hybridization - single embryo transfer
 

  • References

  • 1 Fritz MA. Perspectives on the efficacy and indications for preimplantation genetic screening: where are we now?. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (12) 2617-2621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Thornhill AR, deDie-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP , et al; ESHRE PGD Consortium. ESHRE PGD Consortium 'Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)'. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (1) 35-48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Levy B, Scott Jr RT. Accurate single cell 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening using whole genome amplification and single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (6) 2017-2021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Scott Jr. RT, Ferry K, Su J , et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (4) 870-875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Scott Jr RT, Tao X, Taylor D, Ferry K, Treff N. 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 (4) S2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM , et al. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum Reprod 2012; 27 (4) 1217-1222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978; 2 (8085) 366
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mastenbroek S, van der Veen F, Aflatoonian A, Shapiro B, Bossuyt P, Repping S. Embryo selection in IVF. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (5) 964-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Ozturk O, Serour G, Templeton A. Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (2) CD003416
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wells D, Delhanty JD. Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 2000; 6 (11) 1055-1062
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod 2008; 14 (12) 703-710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Johnson DS, Gemelos G, Baner J , et al. Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (4) 1066-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM , et al. Development and validation of an accurate quantiative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocy comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (4) 819-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dolezel J, Bartos J, Voglmayr H, Greilhuber J. Nuclear DNA content and genome size of trout and human. Cytometry A 2003; 51 (2) 127-128 ; author reply 129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Northrop LE, Scott Jr RT. Single-cell whole-genome amplification technique impacts the accuracy of SNP microarray-based genotyping and copy number analyses. Mol Hum Reprod 2011; 17 (6) 335-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Munne S, Surrey ES, Grifo J , et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis using array CGH significantly increases ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (4) S81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Magli MC, Montag M, Koster M , et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: technical aspects. Human Reprod 2011; 26 (11) 3181-3185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC , et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (11) 3173-3180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Handyside AH, Grifo J, Prates R , et al. Validation and first clinical application of karyomapping for preimplantation diagnosis (PGD) of Gaucher disease combined with 24 chromosome screening. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (4) S79-S80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brezina PR, Benner A, Rechitsky S , et al. Single-gene testing combined with single nucleotide polymorphism microarray preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy: a novel approach in optimizing pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (5) 1786 , e5–e8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Treff NR, Levy B, Su J, Northrop LE, Tao X, Scott Jr RT. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH. Mol Hum Reprod 2010; 16 (8) 583-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott Jr RT. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Fragouli E, Wells D. Aneuploidy in the human blastocyst. Cytogenet Genome Res 2011; 133 (2-4) 149-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Treff NR, Tao X, Schillings WJ, Bergh PA, Scott Jr RT, Levy B. Use of single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays to distinguish between balanced and normal chromosomes in embryos from a translocation carrier. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (1) e58-e65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (5) 1700-1706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Handyside AH, Lesko JG, Tarín JJ, Winston RM, Hughes MR. Birth of a normal girl after in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnostic testing for cystic fibrosis. N Engl J Med 1992; 327 (13) 905-909
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Scott Jr RT, Treff NR. Assessing the reproductive competence of individual embryos: a proposal for the validation of new “-omics” technologies. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (3) 791-794
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cohen J, Wells D, Munné 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mottla GL, Adelman MR, Hall JL, Gindoff PR, Stillman RJ, Johnson KE. Lineage tracing demonstrates that blastomeres of early cleavage-stage human pre-embryos contribute to both trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (2) 384-391
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hardy K, Martin KL, Leese HJ, Winston RM, Handyside AH. Human preimplantation development in vitro is not adversely affected by biopsy at the 8-cell stage. Hum Reprod 1990; 5 (6) 708-714
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 McArthur SJ, Leigh D, Marshall JT, de Boer KA, Jansen RP. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (6) 1628-1636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Miller KA, Levy B, Scott Jr RT. A novel single-cell DNA fingerprinting method successfully distinguishes sibling human embryos. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (2) 477-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Treff NR, Ferry KM, Zhao T , et al. Cleavage stage embryo biopsy significantly impairs embryonic reproductive potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a novel paired analysis of cotransferred biopsied and non-biopsied sibling embryos. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (3) S2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Forman EJ, Ferry KM, Gueye N-A , et al. Trophectoderm biopsy for single-gene disorder preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is significantly more reliable than day 3 blastomere biopsy. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (3) S222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kokkali G, Traeger-Synodinos J, Vrettou C , et al. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage biopsy amd blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta thalassaemia: a pilot study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (5) 1443-1449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Palermo GD, Neri QV, Takeuchi T, Squires J, Moy F, Rosenwaks Z. Genetic and epigenetic characteristics of ICSI children. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17 (6) 820-833
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Treff NR, Su J, Lonczak A, Taylor D, Scott Jr RT. A subset of the cumulus cell transcriptome is predictive of euploid human oocyte reproductive potential. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: S34-S35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Forman EJ, Ferry KM, Benson MR , et al. Embryos derived from vitrified oocytes are not at an increased risk of aneuploidy and demonstrate excellent implantation rates: a paired, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in an infertile population. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (3) S44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2007; 88 (6) 1497-1504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar