Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 10/2016

01-10-2016 | Review

Implementing PGD/PGD-A in IVF clinics: considerations for the best laboratory approach and management

Authors: Antonio Capalbo, Valeria Romanelli, Danilo Cimadomo, Laura Girardi, Marta Stoppa, Lisa Dovere, Domenico Dell’Edera, Filippo Maria Ubaldi, Laura Rienzi

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

For an IVF clinic that wishes to implement preimplantation genetic diagnosis for monogenic diseases (PGD) and for aneuploidy testing (PGD-A), a global improvement is required through all the steps of an IVF treatment and patient care. At present, CCS (Comprehensive Chromosome Screening)-based trophectoderm (TE) biopsy has been demonstrated as a safe, accurate and reproducible approach to conduct PGD-A and possibly also PGD from the same biopsy. Key challenges in PGD/PGD-A implementation cover genetic and reproductive counselling, selection of the most efficient approach for blastocyst biopsy as well as of the best performing molecular technique to conduct CCS and monogenic disease analysis. Three different approaches for TE biopsy can be compared. However, among them, the application of TE biopsy approaches, entailing the zona opening when the expanded blastocyst stage is reached, represent the only biopsy methods suited with a totally undisturbed embryo culture strategy (time lapse-based incubation in a single media). Moreover, contemporary CCS technologies show a different spectrum of capabilities and limits that potentially impact the clinical outcomes, the management and the applicability of the PGD-A itself. In general, CCS approaches that avoid the use of whole genome amplification (WGA) can provide higher reliability of results with lower costs and turnaround time of analysis. The future perspectives are focused on the scrupulous and rigorous clinical validations of novel CCS methods based on targeted approaches that avoid the use of WGA, such as targeted next-generation sequencing technology, to further improve the throughput of analysis and the overall cost-effectiveness of PGD/PGD-A.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344(6268):768–70.PubMedCrossRef Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344(6268):768–70.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):473–83.PubMedCrossRef Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):473–83.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1503–12.PubMedCrossRef Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1503–12.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, Genetics Committee, Wilson RD, Audibert F, et al. Technical update: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37(5):451–63.PubMedCrossRef Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, Genetics Committee, Wilson RD, Audibert F, et al. Technical update: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37(5):451–63.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(10) Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(10)
6.
go back to reference Scott Jr RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:624–30.PubMedCrossRef Scott Jr RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:624–30.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Fragouli E, Lenzi M, Ross R, Katz-Jaffe M, Schoolcraft WB, Wells D. Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(11):2596–608.PubMedCrossRef Fragouli E, Lenzi M, Ross R, Katz-Jaffe M, Schoolcraft WB, Wells D. Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(11):2596–608.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, Filby A, Gemelos G, Hill M, et al. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;12:944–9.CrossRef Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, Filby A, Gemelos G, Hill M, et al. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;12:944–9.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference 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;8:590–600.CrossRef 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;8:590–600.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Capalbo A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Biricik A, Baldi M, Colamaria S, 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;28:509–18.PubMedCrossRef Capalbo A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Biricik A, Baldi M, Colamaria S, 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;28:509–18.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7:CD002118.PubMed Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7:CD002118.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Colamaria S, Ferrero S, Maggiulli R, Vajta G, et al. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2097–106.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Colamaria S, Ferrero S, Maggiulli R, Vajta G, et al. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2097–106.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(1):100–7.PubMedCrossRef Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(1):100–7.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantion genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5 Suppl):S136–43. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantion genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5 Suppl):S136–43.
15.
go back to reference Wale PL, Gardner DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(1):2–22.PubMedCrossRef Wale PL, Gardner DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(1):2–22.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference 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):1628–36.PubMedCrossRef 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):1628–36.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference 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):1700–6.PubMedCrossRef 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):1700–6.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1173–81.PubMedCrossRef Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1173–81.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Feichtinger W, Strohmer H, Fuhrberg P, Radivojevic K, et al. Photoablation of oocyte zona pellucida by erbium-YAG laser for in-vitro fertilisation in severe male infertility. Lancet. 1992;339(8796):811.PubMedCrossRef Feichtinger W, Strohmer H, Fuhrberg P, Radivojevic K, et al. Photoablation of oocyte zona pellucida by erbium-YAG laser for in-vitro fertilisation in severe male infertility. Lancet. 1992;339(8796):811.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Cohen J, Alikani M, Garrisi JG, Willadsen S. Micromanipulation of human gametes and embryos: ooplasmic donation at fertilization. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4(2):195–6.PubMedCrossRef Cohen J, Alikani M, Garrisi JG, Willadsen S. Micromanipulation of human gametes and embryos: ooplasmic donation at fertilization. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4(2):195–6.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Cohen J, Malter H, Elsner C, Kort H, et al. Immunosuppression supports implantation of zona pellucida dissected human embryos. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(4):662–5.PubMedCrossRef Cohen J, Malter H, Elsner C, Kort H, et al. Immunosuppression supports implantation of zona pellucida dissected human embryos. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(4):662–5.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Eldar-Geva T, Srebnik N, Altarescu G, Varshaver I, et al. Neonatal outcome after preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):1016–21.PubMedCrossRef Eldar-Geva T, Srebnik N, Altarescu G, Varshaver I, et al. Neonatal outcome after preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):1016–21.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference De Vos A, Van Steirteghem A. Aspects of biopsy procedures prior to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2001;21(9):767–80.PubMedCrossRef De Vos A, Van Steirteghem A. Aspects of biopsy procedures prior to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2001;21(9):767–80.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Geber S, Bossi R, Lisboa CB, Valle M, et al. Laser confers less embryo exposure than acid tyrode for embryo biopsy in preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles: a randomized study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Geber S, Bossi R, Lisboa CB, Valle M, et al. Laser confers less embryo exposure than acid tyrode for embryo biopsy in preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles: a randomized study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Rink K, Delacrétaz G, Salathé RP, Senn A, et al. Non-contact microdrilling of mouse zona pellucida with an objective-delivered 1.48-microns diode laser. Lasers Surg Med. 1996;18(1):52–62.PubMedCrossRef Rink K, Delacrétaz G, Salathé RP, Senn A, et al. Non-contact microdrilling of mouse zona pellucida with an objective-delivered 1.48-microns diode laser. Lasers Surg Med. 1996;18(1):52–62.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Taylor TH, Gilchrist JW, Hallowell SV, Hanshew KK, et al. The effects of different laser pulse lengths on the embryo biopsy procedure and embryo development to the blastocyst stage. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27(11):663–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Taylor TH, Gilchrist JW, Hallowell SV, Hanshew KK, et al. The effects of different laser pulse lengths on the embryo biopsy procedure and embryo development to the blastocyst stage. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27(11):663–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. New approaches for multifactor preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic diseases and aneuploidies from a single biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):297–8.PubMedCrossRef Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. New approaches for multifactor preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic diseases and aneuploidies from a single biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):297–8.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Scarica C, Palagiano A, Canipari R, Rienzi L. The impact of biopsy on human embryo developmental potential during preimplantation genetic diagnosis. BioMed Research International 2016. Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Scarica C, Palagiano A, Canipari R, Rienzi L. The impact of biopsy on human embryo developmental potential during preimplantation genetic diagnosis. BioMed Research International 2016.
29.
go back to reference Rienzi L, Capalbo A, Stoppa M, Romano S, Maggiulli R, Albricci 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 Rienzi L, Capalbo A, Stoppa M, Romano S, Maggiulli R, Albricci 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
30.
go back to reference Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):699–704.PubMedCrossRef Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):699–704.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Thornton S. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27(2):140–6.PubMedCrossRef Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Thornton S. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27(2):140–6.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Kaser DJ, Racowsky C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(5):617–31.PubMedCrossRef Kaser DJ, Racowsky C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(5):617–31.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Kirkegaard K, Ahlström A, Ingerslev HJ, Hardarson T. Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(2):323–32.PubMedCrossRef Kirkegaard K, Ahlström A, Ingerslev HJ, Hardarson T. Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(2):323–32.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B, Thornhill AR, Affara N, Shaw MA. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet. 2010;47:651–8.PubMedCrossRef Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B, Thornhill AR, Affara N, Shaw MA. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet. 2010;47:651–8.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Rechitsky S, Pakhalchuk T, San Ramos G, Goodman A, Zlatopolsky Z, Kuliev A. First systematic experience of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for single-gene disorders, and/or preimplantation human leukocyte antigen typing, combined with 24-chromosome aneuploidy testing. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(2):503–12.PubMedCrossRef Rechitsky S, Pakhalchuk T, San Ramos G, Goodman A, Zlatopolsky Z, Kuliev A. First systematic experience of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for single-gene disorders, and/or preimplantation human leukocyte antigen typing, combined with 24-chromosome aneuploidy testing. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(2):503–12.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Zimmerman RS, Jalas C, Tao X, Fedick AM, Kim JG, Pepe RJ, et al. Development and validation of concurrent preimplantation genetic diagnosis for single gene disorders and comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening without whole genome amplification. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):286–94.PubMedCrossRef Zimmerman RS, Jalas C, Tao X, Fedick AM, Kim JG, Pepe RJ, et al. Development and validation of concurrent preimplantation genetic diagnosis for single gene disorders and comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening without whole genome amplification. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):286–94.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference 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;16:583–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef 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;16:583–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
go back to reference 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;99:1049–53.PubMedCrossRef 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;99:1049–53.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, Tao X, Upham K, Ubaldi FM, et al. Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(7):901–6.PubMedCrossRef Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, Tao X, Upham K, Ubaldi FM, et al. Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(7):901–6.PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Scott Jr RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, 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 Scott Jr RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, 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
41.
go back to reference Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM, Su J, Taylor D, Scott Jr RT. 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 Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM, Su J, Taylor D, Scott Jr RT. 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
42.
go back to reference Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Patassini C, Dusi L, et al. Consistent and reproducible outcomes of blastocyst biopsy and aneuploidy screening across different biopsy practitioners: a multicentre study involving 2586 embryo biopsies. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(1):199–208.PubMedCrossRef Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Patassini C, Dusi L, et al. Consistent and reproducible outcomes of blastocyst biopsy and aneuploidy screening across different biopsy practitioners: a multicentre study involving 2586 embryo biopsies. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(1):199–208.PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Treff NR, Fedick A, Tao X, Devkota B, Taylor D, Scott Jr RT. Evaluation of targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic disease. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1377–84.PubMedCrossRef Treff NR, Fedick A, Tao X, Devkota B, Taylor D, Scott Jr RT. Evaluation of targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic disease. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1377–84.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Werner MD, Franasiak JM, Hong KH, Juneau CR, Tao X, Landis J, Upham KM, Treff NR, Scott RT. A prospective, blinded, non-selection study to determine the predictive value of ploidy results using a novel method of targeted amplification based next generation sequencing (NGS) for comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS). ASRM abstract book 2015. Werner MD, Franasiak JM, Hong KH, Juneau CR, Tao X, Landis J, Upham KM, Treff NR, Scott RT. A prospective, blinded, non-selection study to determine the predictive value of ploidy results using a novel method of targeted amplification based next generation sequencing (NGS) for comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS). ASRM abstract book 2015.
Metadata
Title
Implementing PGD/PGD-A in IVF clinics: considerations for the best laboratory approach and management
Authors
Antonio Capalbo
Valeria Romanelli
Danilo Cimadomo
Laura Girardi
Marta Stoppa
Lisa Dovere
Domenico Dell’Edera
Filippo Maria Ubaldi
Laura Rienzi
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0768-3

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 10/2016 Go to the issue