Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 9/2016

01-09-2016 | Review

Recent advances in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening

Authors: Lina Lu, Bo Lv, Kevin Huang, Zhigang Xue, Xianmin Zhu, Guoping Fan

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 9/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS) aims to help couples lower the risks of transmitting genetic defects to their offspring, implantation failure, and/or miscarriage during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. However, it is still being debated with regard to the practicality and diagnostic accuracy of PGD/PGS due to the concern of invasive biopsy and the potential mosaicism of embryos. Recently, several non-invasive and high-throughput assays have been developed to help overcome the challenges encountered in the conventional invasive biopsy and low-throughput analysis in PGD/PGS. In this mini-review, we will summarize the recent progresses of these new methods for PGD/PGS and discuss their potential applications in IVF clinics.
Literature
1.
Harper JC. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. viii; 2009. p. 294 p.CrossRef
2.
3.
Handyside AH et al. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344(6268):768–70.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(3):281–9.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Harton GL et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for amplification-based PGD. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):33–40.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ. 2015;350:g7611.PubMedCrossRef
7.
8.
Novik V et al. The accuracy of chromosomal microarray testing for identification of embryonic mosaicism in human blastocysts. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7(1):18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Schoolcraft WB et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1700–6.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Greco E et al. Successful implantation and live birth of a healthy boy after triple biopsy and double vitrification of oocyte-embryo-blastocyst. Springerplus. 2015;4:22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
12.
Cohen J, Grudzinskas G, Johnson MH. Embryonic DNA sampling without biopsy: the beginnings of non-invasive PGD? Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(6):520–1.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Gianaroli L et al. Blastocentesis: a source of DNA for preimplantation genetic testing. Results from a pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1692–9. e6.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Tobler KJ et al. The potential use of blastocoel fluid (BF) from expanded blastocysts as a less invasive form of embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):e183–4.CrossRef
15.
Assou S et al. Non-invasive pre-implantation genetic diagnosis of X-linked disorders. Med Hypotheses. 2014;83(4):506–8.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Wu H et al. Medium-based noninvasive preimplantation genetic diagnosis for human alpha-thalassemias-SEA. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(12):e669.CrossRef
17.
Lemmen JG, Agerholm I, Ziebe S. Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(3):385–91.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Meseguer M et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2658–71.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Chawla M et al. Morphokinetic analysis of cleavage stage embryos and its relationship to aneuploidy in a retrospective time-lapse imaging study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(1):69–75.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Storr A et al. Morphokinetic parameters using time-lapse technology and day 5 embryo quality: a prospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(7):1151–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
22.
Friedman BE et al. Non-invasive imaging for the detection of human embryonic aneuploidy at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3, Supplement):S38.CrossRef
23.
Ottolini C, Rienzi L, Capalbo A. A cautionary note against embryo aneuploidy risk assessment using time-lapse imaging. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28(3):273–5.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Rienzi L et al. No evidence of association between blastocyst aneuploidy and morphokinetic assessment in a selected population of poor-prognosis patients: a longitudinal cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(1):57–66.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Dreesen J et al. Evaluation of PCR-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis applied to monogenic diseases: a collaborative ESHRE PGD consortium study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(8):1012–8.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Muggleton-Harris AL et al. Genetic diagnosis using polymerase chain reaction and fluorescent in-situ hybridization analysis of biopsied cells from both the cleavage and blastocyst stages of individual cultured human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(1):183–92.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Findlay I et al. Fluorescent PCR: a new technique for PGD of sex and single-gene defects. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1996;13(2):96–103.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Fiorentino F et al. Polymerase chain reaction-based detection of chromosomal imbalances on embryos: the evolution of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosomal translocations. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2001–U117.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Sallevelt SCEH et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in mitochondrial DNA disorders: challenge and success. J Med Genet. 2013;50(2):125–32.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Griffin DK et al. Fluorescent in-situ hybridization to interphase nuclei of human preimplantation embryos with X and Y chromosome specific probes. Hum Reprod. 1991;6(1):101–5.PubMed
31.
Munne S et al. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(12):2185–91.PubMed
32.
Grifo JA et al. Pregnancy after embryo biopsy and coamplification of DNA from X and Y chromosomes. JAMA. 1992;268(6):727–9.PubMedCrossRef
33.
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
34.
35.
Munne S et al. First pregnancies after preconception diagnosis of translocations of maternal origin. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(4):675–81.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Conn CM et al. Infertile couples with Robertsonian translocations: preimplantation genetic analysis of embryos reveals chaotic cleavage divisions. Hum Genet. 1998;102(1):117–23.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Keltz MD et al. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(10):1333–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Treff NR et al. Single-cell whole-genome amplification technique impacts the accuracy of SNP microarray-based genotyping and copy number analyses. Mol Hum Reprod. 2011;17(6):335–43.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Forman EJ et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening alters traditional morphology-based embryo selection: a prospective study of 100 consecutive cycles of planned fresh euploid blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):718–24.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Treff NR, Scott Jr RT. Four-hour quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based comprehensive chromosome screening and accumulating evidence of accuracy, safety, predictive value, and clinical efficacy. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(4):1049–53.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Scott Jr RT et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):697–703.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Treff NR et al. Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):819–24.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Brezina PR, Kearns WG. The evolving role of genetics in reproductive medicine. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2014;41(1):41–55.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Solinas-Toldo S et al. Matrix-based comparative genomic hybridization: biochips to screen for genomic imbalances. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1997;20(4):399–407.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Pinkel D et al. High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays. Nat Genet. 1998;20(2):207–11.PubMedCrossRef
46.
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
47.
Ramos L et al. Oligonucleotide arrays vs. metaphase-comparative genomic hybridisation and BAC arrays for single-cell analysis: first applications to preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Robertsonian translocation carriers. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e113223.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Fiorentino F et al. PGD for reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations using array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1925–35.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Capalbo A et al. FISH reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts shows high accuracy of diagnosis and no major diagnostic impact of mosaicism at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2298–307.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Nayot D et al. Live birth following serial vitrification of embryos and PGD for fragile X syndrome in a patient with the premutation and decreased ovarian reserve. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(11):1439–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Fragouli E et al. Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(2):480–90.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Tobler KJ et al. Blastocoel fluid from differentiated blastocysts harbors embryonic genomic material capable of a whole-genome deoxyribonucleic acid amplification and comprehensive chromosome microarray analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(2):418–25.
53.
Fragouli E et al. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20(2):117–26.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Capalbo A et al. Sequential comprehensive chromosome analysis on polar bodies, blastomeres and trophoblast: insights into female meiotic errors and chromosomal segregation in the preimplantation window of embryo development. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(2):509–18.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Fishel S et al. Live birth after polar body array comparative genomic hybridization prediction of embryo ploidy-the future of IVF? Fertil Steril. 2010;93(3):1006 e7–1006 e10.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Tobler KJ et al. Blastocoel fluid from differentiated blastocysts harbors embryonic genomic material capable of a whole-genome deoxyribonucleic acid amplification and comprehensive chromosome microarray analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(2):418–25.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Alfarawati S et al. First births after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of structural chromosome abnormalities using comparative genomic hybridization and microarray analysis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(6):1560–74.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Treff, N.R., et al., Single nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based concurrent screening of 24-chromosome aneuploidy and unbalanced translocations in preimplantation human embryos. Fertil Steril, 2011. 95(5): p. 1606–12 e1-2.
59.
Brezina, P.R., 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): p. 1786 e5-8.
60.
Tobler KJ et al. Two different microarray technologies for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening, due to reciprocal translocation imbalances, demonstrate equivalent euploidy and clinical pregnancy rates. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(7):843–50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
Treff NR et al. Use of single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays to distinguish between balanced and normal chromosomes in embryos from a translocation carrier. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(1):e58–65.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Li G et al. Increased IVF pregnancy rates after microarray preimplantation genetic diagnosis due to parental translocations. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2014;60(2):119–24.PubMedCrossRef
63.
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
64.
Konstantinidis M et al. Live births following karyomapping of human blastocysts: experience from clinical application of the method. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31(3):394–403.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Thornhill AR et al. Karyomapping—a comprehensive means of simultaneous monogenic and cytogenetic PGD: comparison with standard approaches in real time for Marfan syndrome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(3):347–56.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
66.
Natesan SA et al. Live birth after PGD with confirmation by a comprehensive approach (karyomapping) for simultaneous detection of monogenic and chromosomal disorders. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(5):600–5.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Gimenez, C., et al., Karyomapping allows preimplantation genetic diagnosis of a de-novo deletion undetectable using conventional PGD technology. Reprod Biomed Online, 2015.
68.
Zheng H et al. Application of next-generation sequencing for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of human preimplantation embryos. Mol Cytogenet. 2015;8:38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
69.
Fiorentino F et al. Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(12):2802–13.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Fiorentino F et al. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1375–82.PubMedCrossRef
71.
72.
Lukaszuk K et al. Healthy baby born to a Robertsonian translocation carrier following next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a case report. AJP Rep. 2015;5(2):e172–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
73.
Yin X et al. Massively parallel sequencing for chromosomal abnormality testing in trophectoderm cells of human blastocysts. Biol Reprod. 2013;88(3):69.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Lukaszuk K et al. Routine use of next-generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of blastomeres obtained from embryos on day 3 in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(4):1031–6.PubMedCrossRef
75.
76.
77.
Telenius HK et al. Degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR: general amplification of target DNA by a single degenerate primer. Genomics. 1992;13(3):718–25.PubMedCrossRef
78.
79.
80.
81.
Huang L et al. Single-cell whole-genome amplification and sequencing: methodology and applications. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2015;16:79–102.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Huang J et al. Validation of multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycle sequencing for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of cleavage-stage embryos. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1685–91.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Shi J et al. Dynamic transcriptional symmetry-breaking in pre-implantation mammalian embryo development revealed by single-cell RNA-seq. Development. 2015;142(20):3468–77.PubMedCrossRef
84.
Zhang, C.-Z., et al., Calibrating genomic and allelic coverage bias in single-cell sequencing. Nat Commun, 2015. 6.
85.
Tang F et al. mRNA-Seq whole-transcriptome analysis of a single cell. Nat Methods. 2009;6(5):377–82.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Yan L et al. Single-cell RNA-Seq profiling of human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2013;20(9):1131–9.PubMedCrossRef
87.
88.
89.
90.
Macaulay IC et al. G&T-seq: parallel sequencing of single-cell genomes and transcriptomes. Nat Methods. 2015;12(6):519–22.PubMedCrossRef
91.
Yan L et al. Live births after simultaneous avoidance of monogenic diseases and chromosome abnormality by next-generation sequencing with linkage analyses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(52):15964–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Recent advances in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening
Authors
Lina Lu
Bo Lv
Kevin Huang
Zhigang Xue
Xianmin Zhu
Guoping Fan
Publication date
01-09-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 9/2016
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0750-0

Other articles of this Issue 9/2016

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 9/2016 Go to the issue

Editor’s Commentary

The expanding and contracting roles of the genome in regulation of the ovarian reserve

Reproductive Physiology and Disease

Reduced sperm DNA longevity is associated with an increased incidence of still born; evidence from a multi-ovulating sequential artificial insemination animal model

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

The effect on pregnancy and multiples of transferring 1–3 embryos in women at least 40 years old

Genetics

Molecular cytogenetic characterization of two Turner syndrome patients with mosaic ring X chromosome

Commentary

The importance of redundancy of functional ovarian reserve when investigating potential genetic effects on ovarian function

Review

The impact of FMR1 gene mutations on human reproduction and development: a systematic review