21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identification of mosaic and segmental aneuploidies by next-generation sequencing in preimplantation genetic screening can improve clinical outcomes compared to array-comparative genomic hybridization

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Chromosomal mosaicism is observed as the presence of both euploid and aneuploid cells in a particular blastocyst. Recent studies have reported that the implantation rate of mosaic embryo transfer is remarkably lower than the euploid embryos. The superior capability of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to detect chromosomal mosaicism in preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) remains controversial, and several data displayed similar implantation and pregnancy rates using NGS or array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH).

          Results

          In this study, the main inconsistency of aneuploidy detection and clinical performance between the NGS and aCGH were assessed. The phase I consisted of a parallel comparison in 182 blastocysts from 45 selected PGS patients for both the NGS and aCGH platforms. The phase II retrospectively compared the clinical outcomes of 90 patients with NGS-screened euploid embryo transfer to that of 129 patients with aCGH-screened euploid embryo transfer. The parallel comparison showed that the inconsistency of embryo euploidy was 11.8% ( p = 0.01). Chromosomal mosaicism (10.7% with NGS vs. 3.9% with aCGH) and segmental aneuploidy (10.7% with NGS vs. 6.7% with aCGH) contributed to the discrepancy mainly. The chromosomally mosaic embryos (20%–50% of aneuploidy) and several embryos with segmental aneuploidy (≥10 Mbp) were hard to distinguish using the aCGH platform, but could be clearly identified using the NGS platform. After the first euploid embryo cryotransfer, the β-HCG(+) rate and implantation rate significantly increased in the PGS/NGS patients (HCG[+] rate: 73.3% in PGS/NGS vs. 60.5% in PGS/aCGH, p = 0.048; implantation rate: 53.2% in PGS/NGS vs. 45.0% in PGS/aCGH, p = 0.043). The clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates appeared higher in the NGS group, but did not reached statistical significance.

          Conclusions

          The results demonstrated that the NGS platform can identify embryos with chromosomal mosaicism and segmental aneuploidy more precisely than the aCGH platform, and the following clinical performance of NGS was more favorable.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Culture and transfer of human blastocysts.

          The transfer of the human embryo at the blastocyst stage during an in-vitro fertilization procedure is a way of increasing implantation rates. This, in turn, means that significantly fewer embryos are required to be transferred in order to establish a successful pregnancy. The result of this is that high order multiple gestations are eliminated, while maintaining high pregnancy rates, in in-vitro fertilization.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Endoreplication and polyploidy: insights into development and disease.

            Polyploid cells have genomes that contain multiples of the typical diploid chromosome number and are found in many different organisms. Studies in a variety of animal and plant developmental systems have revealed evolutionarily conserved mechanisms that control the generation of polyploidy and have recently begun to provide clues to its physiological function. These studies demonstrate that cellular polyploidy plays important roles during normal development and also contributes to human disease, particularly cancer.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The origin and impact of embryonic aneuploidy.

              Despite the clinical importance of aneuploidy, surprisingly little is known concerning its impact during the earliest stages of human development. This study aimed to shed light on the genesis, progression, and survival of different types of chromosome anomaly from the fertilized oocyte through the final stage of preimplantation development (blastocyst). 2,204 oocytes and embryos were examined using comprehensive cytogenetic methodology. A diverse array of chromosome abnormalities was detected, including many forms never recorded later in development. Advancing female age was associated with dramatic increase in aneuploidy rate and complex chromosomal abnormalities. Anaphase lag and congression failure were found to be important malsegregation causing mechanisms in oogenesis and during the first few mitotic divisions. All abnormalities appeared to be tolerated until activation of the embryonic genome, after which some forms started to decline in frequency. However, many aneuploidies continued to have little impact, with affected embryos successfully reaching the blastocyst stage. Results from the direct analyses of female meiotic divisions and early embryonic stages suggest that chromosome errors present during preimplantation development have origins that are more varied than those seen in later pregnancy, raising the intriguing possibility that the source of aneuploidy might modulate impact on embryo viability. The results of this study also narrow the window of time for selection against aneuploid embryos, indicating that most survive until the blastocyst stage and, since they are not detected in clinical pregnancies, must be lost around the time of implantation or shortly thereafter.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                stork.lai@msa.hinet.net
                ch731210@gmail.com
                wlinkin2004@gmail.com
                swrh1214@gmail.com
                premio3a@gmail.com
                dr.wang1969@gmail.com
                +886-2-23123456 , sheeuan@ntu.edu.tw
                Journal
                Mol Cytogenet
                Mol Cytogenet
                Molecular Cytogenetics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1755-8166
                26 April 2017
                26 April 2017
                2017
                : 10
                : 14
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Stork Fertility Center, Stork Ladies Clinic, Hsinchu, Taiwan
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0572 7815, GRID grid.412094.a, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, , National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, ; Taipei, Taiwan
                Article
                315
                10.1186/s13039-017-0315-7
                5405548
                28450889
                911c910a-3a49-44e5-bc74-2fcedd53c8ce
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 10 January 2017
                : 18 April 2017
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Genetics
                preimplantation genetic screening/chromosome mosaicism/segmental aneuploidy/next-generation sequencing

                Comments

                Comment on this article