nach oben

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Erschienen in:

01.05.2015 | Technological Innovations

Molecular analysis of products of conception obtained by hysteroembryoscopy from infertile couples

verfasst von: Inmaculada Campos-Galindo, Sandra García-Herrero, José Antonio Martínez-Conejero, Jaime Ferro, Carlos Simón, Carmen Rubio

Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Ausgabe 5/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the molecular cytogenetic data obtained from products of conception (POC) obtained by selective biopsy of first trimester miscarriages and to estimate the rate of chromosomal anomalies in miscarriages from pregnancies achieved by natural conception (NC) or by assisted reproductive technology (ART) interventions.

Methods

We used KaryoLite™ BoBs™ (PerkinElmer LAS, Wallac, Turku, Finland) technology to analyze 189 samples from ART or NC pregnancies.

Results

All POC were successfully evaluated. A higher incidence of chromosomal abnormalities was observed in POC after ART using the patient’s own oocytes than from NC pregnancies (62.7 % vs. 40.6 %; p < 0.05). The lowest incidence of chromosomal abnormalities was observed in POCs ART using donor eggs from women younger than 35 years (12.8 %). No statistical differences in the percentage of abnormal miscarriages were observed in correlation with sperm concentration: a sperm concentration less than 5 million/mL produced 75 % abnormal results and a concentration higher than 5 million/mL produced 51 %.

Conclusions

POC analysis is essential to determine the cause of pregnancy loss. Using culture-independent molecular biology techniques to analyze POCs avoids limitations such as growth failure and reduces the time required for analysis. Selective biopsy of fetal tissue by hysteroembryoscopy avoids the risk of misdiagnosis due to maternal cell contamination. Our results show that maternal age, sperm quality, and ART-assisted pregnancies are risk factors for abnormal gestations.

Jacobs PA, Hassold TJ. Chromosome abnormalities: Origin and etiology in abortions and livebirths. In: Vogel F, Sperling K, editors. Human Genetics. Berlin: Springer; 1987. p. 233–244.

Hassold TJ. A cytogenetic study of repeated spontaneous abortions. Am J Med Genet. 1980;32:723–30.

Hassold T, Chen N, Funkhouser J, et al. A cytogenetic study of 1000 spontaneous abortions. Ann Hum Genet. 1980;44(Pt 2):151–78.CrossRefPubMed

Simpson JL. Incidence and timing of pregnancy losses: relevance to evaluating safety of early prenatal diagnosis. Am J Med Genet. 1990;35(2):165–73.CrossRefPubMed

Boué J, Bou A, Lazar P. Retrospective and prospective epidemiological studies of 1500 karyotyped spontaneous human abortions. Teratology. 1975;12(1):11–26.CrossRefPubMed

Kajii T, Ferrier A, Niikawa N, Takahara H, Ohama K, Avirachan S. Anatomic and chromosomal anomalies in 639 spontaneous abortuses. Hum Genet. 1980;55(1):87–98.CrossRefPubMed

Robberecht C, Schuddinck V, Fryns JP, Vermeesch JR. Diagnosis of miscarriages by molecular karyotyping: benefits and pitfalls. Genet Med. 2009;11(9):646–54.CrossRefPubMed

Kalousek D, Lau A. Pathology of spontaneous abortion. In: Dimmick J, Kalousek D, editors. Developmental pathology of the embryo and fetus. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1992. p. 55–82.

Reddy KS. Double trisomy in spontaneous abortions. Hum Genet. 1997;101:339–45.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Robberecht C, Pexsters A, Deprest J, Fryns JP, D’Hooghe T, Vermeesch JR. Cytogenetic and morphological analysis of early products of conception following hystero-embryoscopy from couples with recurrent pregnancy loss. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(10):933–42.CrossRefPubMed

11.

van den Boogaard E, Kaandorp SP, Franssen MT, et al. Consecutive or non-consecutive recurrent miscarriage: is there any difference in carrier status? Hum Reprod. 2010;25(6):1411–4.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Stirrat GM. Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet. 1990;336(8716):673–5.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Definitions of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5 Suppl):S60.

14.

Stephenson M, Kutteh W. Evaluation and management of recurrent early pregnancy loss. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50(1):132–45.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Jauniaux E, Farquharson RG, Christiansen OB, Exalto N. Evidence-based guidelines for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(9):2216–22.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Stephenson MD. Frequency of factors associated with habitual abortion in 197 couples. Fertil Steril. 1996;66(1):24–9.PubMed

17.

Marquard K, Westphal LM, Milki AA, Lathi RB. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss in women over the age of 35 years. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1473–7.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Grati FR, Gomes DM, Ganesamoorthy D, et al. Application of a new molecular technique for the genetic evaluation of products of conception. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(1):32–41.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1103–11.CrossRef

20.

Ferro J, Martinez MC, Lara C, Pellicer A, Remohi J, Serra V. Improved accuracy of hysteroembryoscopic biopsies for karyotyping early missed abortions. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(5):1260–4.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Bell KA, Van Deerlin PG, Haddad BR, Feinberg RF. Cytogenetic diagnosis of “normal 46, XX” karyotypes in spontaneous abortions frequently may be misleading. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(2):334–41.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Jarrett KL, Michaelis RC, Phelan MC, Vincent VA, Best RG. Microsatellite analysis reveals a high incidence of maternal cell contamination in 46, XX products of conception consisting of villi or a combination of villi and membranous material. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(1):198–203.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hassold T, Quillen SD, Yamane JA. Sex ratio in spontaneous abortions. Ann Hum Genet. 1983;47(Pt 1):39–47.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lathi RB, Gustin SL, Keller J, et al. Reliability of 46, XX results on miscarriage specimens: a review of 1,222 first-trimester miscarriage specimens. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):178–82.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Caramins MC, Saville T, Shakeshaft R, et al. A comparison of molecular and cytogenetic techniques for the diagnosis of pregnancy loss. Genet Med. 2011;13(1):46–51.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Donaghue C, Mann K, Docherty Z, Mazzaschi R, Fear C, Ogilvie C. Combined QF-PCR and MLPA molecular analysis of miscarriage products: an efficient and robust alternative to karyotype analysis. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30(2):133–7.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Schaeffer AJ, Chung J, Heretis K, Wong A, Ledbetter DH, Lese MC. Comparative genomic hybridization-array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicroscopic imbalances in spontaneous miscarriages. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;74(6):1168–74.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

28.

Menten B, Swerts K, Delle Chiaie B, et al. Array comparative genomic hybridization and flow cytometry analysis of spontaneous abortions and mors in utero samples. BMC Med Genet. 2009;10:89.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

29.

Doria S, Lima V, Carvalho B, et al. Application of touch FISH in the study of mosaic tetraploidy and maternal cell contamination in pregnancy losses. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27(11):657–62.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

30.

Vialard F, Simoni G, Gomes DM, et al. Prenatal BACs-on-beads: the prospective experience of five prenatal diagnosis laboratories. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(4):329–35.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Dunbar SA. Applications of luminex xMAP technology for rapid, high-throughput multiplexed nucleic acid detection. Clin Chim Acta. 2006;363(1–2):71–82.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Bettio D, Venci A, Levi Setti PE. Chromosomal abnormalities in miscarriages after different assisted reproduction procedures. Placenta. 2008;29(Suppl B):126–8.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Guerneri S, Bettio D, Simoni G, Brambati B, Lanzani A, Fraccaro M. Prevalence and distribution of chromosome abnormalities in a sample of first trimester internal abortions. Hum Reprod. 1987;2(8):735–9.PubMed

34.

Nagaishi M, Yamamoto T, Iinuma K, Shimomura K, Berend SA, Knops J. Chromosome abnormalities identified in 347 spontaneous abortions collected in japan. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004;30(3):237–41.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Yusuf RZ, Naeem R. Cytogenetic abnormalities in products of conception: a relationship revisited. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2004;52(1):88–96.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Morales C, Sanchez A, Bruguera J, et al. Cytogenetic study of spontaneous abortions using semi-direct analysis of chorionic villi samples detects the broadest spectrum of chromosome abnormalities. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A(1):66–70.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Menasha J, Levy B, Hirschhorn K, Kardon NB. Incidence and spectrum of chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortions: new insights from a 12-year study. Genet Med. 2005;7(4):251–63.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Rodrigo L, Peinado V, Mateu E, et al. Impact of different patterns of sperm chromosomal abnormalities on the chromosomal constitution of preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1380–6.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Rubio C, Gil-Salom M, Simon C, et al. Incidence of sperm chromosomal abnormalities in a risk population: relationship with sperm quality and ICSI outcome. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(10):2084–92.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Ballif BC, Kashork CD, Saleki R, et al. Detecting sex chromosome anomalies and common triploidies in products of conception by array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26(4):333–9.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Vermeesch JR, Melotte C, Froyen G, et al. Molecular karyotyping: array CGH quality criteria for constitutional genetic diagnosis. J Histochem Cytochem. 2005;53(3):413–22.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Ballif BC, Rorem EA, Sundin K, et al. Detection of low-level mosaicism by array CGH in routine diagnostic specimens. Am J Med Genet A. 2006;140(24):2757–67.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Cheung SW, Shaw CA, Scott DA, et al. Microarray-based CGH detects chromosomal mosaicism not revealed by conventional cytogenetics. Am J Med Genet A. 2007;143A(15):1679–86.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Al-Asmar N, Peinado V, Vera M, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos from couples with a previous aneuploid miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(1):145–50.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Molecular analysis of products of conception obtained by hysteroembryoscopy from infertile couples
verfasst von: Inmaculada Campos-Galindo
Sandra García-Herrero
José Antonio Martínez-Conejero
Jaime Ferro
Carlos Simón
Carmen Rubio
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Ausgabe 5/2015
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0460-z

Update Gynäkologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Molecular analysis of products of conception obtained by hysteroembryoscopy from infertile couples