Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 11/2016

01-11-2016 | Opinion

Human embryo mosaicism: did we drop the ball on chromosomal testing?

Authors: Navid Esfandiari, Megan E. Bunnell, Robert F. Casper

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 11/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

There are newly recognized challenges presented by the occurrence of mosaicism in the context of trophectoderm (TE) biopsy for pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos. Chromosomal mosaicism, known to be significantly higher in IVF embryos than in later prenatal samples, may contribute to errors in diagnosis. In particular, PGS may result in discarding embryos diagnosed as aneuploid but in which the inner cell mass may be completely or mainly euploid, thus representing a false positive diagnosis. Although less likely, some embryos diagnosed as euploid could be mosaic and contain some aneuploid cells, possibly impacting their implantation potential. The ability of current diagnostic techniques to detect mosaicism is limited by the number and location of TE cells in the biopsy and by the methodology used for chromosomal assessment. The clinical consequences of mosaicism are dependent on the chromosome(s) involved, the developmental stage at which the mosaicism evolved, and whether TE biopsy accurately reflects the status of the inner cell mass that forms the fetus. Consequently, in patients with no euploid embryos identified on PGS, it may be appropriate to consider the transfer of diagnosed aneuploid embryos if the TE biopsy result is a non-viable chromosomal monosomy or triploidy that could not result in a birth. It should be acknowledged in consent forms that mosaicism has the potential to impact test results and that its detection may be below the resolution of the genetic tests being used. This concept represents a major shift in current IVF practice and ought to be considered given the data, or lack thereof, of the impact of mosaicism on IVF/PGS outcomes.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled rrials. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(3):281–9.CrossRefPubMed Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled rrials. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(3):281–9.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, Genetics Committee, Wilson ED, Audibert F, et al. Technical update: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37:451–63.CrossRefPubMed Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, Genetics Committee, Wilson ED, Audibert F, et al. Technical update: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37:451–63.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ. 2015;350:g7611.CrossRefPubMed Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ. 2015;350:g7611.CrossRefPubMed
5.
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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Sermon K, Viville S. Chromosomes in early human embryo development: incidence of chromosomal abnormalities, underlying mechanisms and consequences for development. Textbook Hum Reprod Genet. 2014;52–67. Sermon K, Viville S. Chromosomes in early human embryo development: incidence of chromosomal abnormalities, underlying mechanisms and consequences for development. Textbook Hum Reprod Genet. 2014;52–67.
7.
go back to reference Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C. Preimplanatation genetic testing: available and emerging technologies. In vitro Fertilization: Compr Guid. 2012;115–144. Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C. Preimplanatation genetic testing: available and emerging technologies. In vitro Fertilization: Compr Guid. 2012;115–144.
8.
go back to reference Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, Filby A, Gemelos G, Hill M, Ryan A, Smotrich D Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, Filby A, Gemelos G, Hill M, Ryan A, Smotrich D
9.
go back to reference Novik V, Moulton EB, Sisson M, Shrestha SL, Tran K, Stern H, et al. The accuracy of chromosomal microarray testing for identification of embryonic mosaicism in human blastocysts. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7(1):18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Novik V, Moulton EB, Sisson M, Shrestha SL, Tran K, Stern H, et al. The accuracy of chromosomal microarray testing for identification of embryonic mosaicism in human blastocysts. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7(1):18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Van Echten-Arends J, Mastenbroek S, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Heineman MJ, van der Veen F, et al. Chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos: a systemic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:620–7.CrossRefPubMed Van Echten-Arends J, Mastenbroek S, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Heineman MJ, van der Veen F, et al. Chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos: a systemic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:620–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Barbash-Hazan S, Frumkin T, Malcov M, Yaron Y, Cohen T, Azem F, et al. Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:890–6.CrossRefPubMed Barbash-Hazan S, Frumkin T, Malcov M, Yaron Y, Cohen T, Azem F, et al. Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:890–6.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Barzrgar M, Gourabi H, Valojerdi MR, Yazdi PE, Beharvand H. Self-correction of chromosomal abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2013;22:2449–56.CrossRef Barzrgar M, Gourabi H, Valojerdi MR, Yazdi PE, Beharvand H. Self-correction of chromosomal abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2013;22:2449–56.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Bolton H, Graham SJL, Niels Van Der A, Kumar P, Theunis K, Fernandez Gallardo E, et al. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nat Comms. 2016;7:11165.CrossRef Bolton H, Graham SJL, Niels Van Der A, Kumar P, Theunis K, Fernandez Gallardo E, et al. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nat Comms. 2016;7:11165.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Goldberg JD, Wohlferd MM. Incidence and outcome of chromosomal mosaicism found at the time of chorionic villus sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176:1349–453.CrossRefPubMed Goldberg JD, Wohlferd MM. Incidence and outcome of chromosomal mosaicism found at the time of chorionic villus sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176:1349–453.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Haddad G, He W, Gill J, Witz C, Wang C, Kaskar K, et al. Mosaic pregnancy after transfer of a “euploid” blastocyst screened by DNA microarray. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6(1):70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Haddad G, He W, Gill J, Witz C, Wang C, Kaskar K, et al. Mosaic pregnancy after transfer of a “euploid” blastocyst screened by DNA microarray. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6(1):70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Kalousek DK, Dill FJ. Chromosomal mosaicism confined to the placenta in human conception. Science. 1983;221:665–7.CrossRefPubMed Kalousek DK, Dill FJ. Chromosomal mosaicism confined to the placenta in human conception. Science. 1983;221:665–7.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Phillips OP, Tharapel AT, Lerner JL, Park VM, Wachtel SS, Shulman LP. Risk of fetal mosaicism when placental mosaicism is diagnosed by chorionic villus sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:850–5.CrossRefPubMed Phillips OP, Tharapel AT, Lerner JL, Park VM, Wachtel SS, Shulman LP. Risk of fetal mosaicism when placental mosaicism is diagnosed by chorionic villus sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:850–5.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Li M, DeUgarte CM, Surrey M, Danzer H, DeCherney H, DeCherney A, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization reanalysis of day-6 human blastocysts diagnosed with aneuploidy on day 3. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1395–400.CrossRefPubMed Li M, DeUgarte CM, Surrey M, Danzer H, DeCherney H, DeCherney A, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization reanalysis of day-6 human blastocysts diagnosed with aneuploidy on day 3. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1395–400.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Liu J, Wang W, Sun X, Liu L, Jin H, Li M, et al. DNA microarray reveals that high proportions of human blastocysts from women of advanced maternal age are aneuploid and mosaic. Biol Reprod. 2012;87:1–9.CrossRef Liu J, Wang W, Sun X, Liu L, Jin H, Li M, et al. DNA microarray reveals that high proportions of human blastocysts from women of advanced maternal age are aneuploid and mosaic. Biol Reprod. 2012;87:1–9.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Taylor TH, Gitlin SA, Patrick JL, Crain JL, Wilson JM, Griffin DK. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(4):571–81.CrossRefPubMed Taylor TH, Gitlin SA, Patrick JL, Crain JL, Wilson JM, Griffin DK. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(4):571–81.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20:117–26.CrossRefPubMed Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20:117–26.CrossRefPubMed
22.
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;16:590–600.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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;16:590–600.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Evsikov S, Verlinsky Y. Mosaicism in the inner cell mass of human blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:3151–5.CrossRefPubMed Evsikov S, Verlinsky Y. Mosaicism in the inner cell mass of human blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:3151–5.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Delhanty JDA, Handyside AH. The origin of genetic defects in the human and their detection in the preimplantation embryo. Hum Redprod Update. 1995;1:201–15.CrossRef Delhanty JDA, Handyside AH. The origin of genetic defects in the human and their detection in the preimplantation embryo. Hum Redprod Update. 1995;1:201–15.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Grifo J, Colls P, Ribustello L, Escudero T, Liu E, Munné S. Why do array-CGH (aCGH) euploid embryos miscarry? Reanalysis by NGS reveals undetected abnormalities which would have prevented 56% of the miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 2015;104 Suppl 3:e14.CrossRef Grifo J, Colls P, Ribustello L, Escudero T, Liu E, Munné S. Why do array-CGH (aCGH) euploid embryos miscarry? Reanalysis by NGS reveals undetected abnormalities which would have prevented 56% of the miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 2015;104 Suppl 3:e14.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Munné S, Grifo J, Wells D. Mosaicism: “survival of the fittest” versus “no embryo left behind. Fertil Steril. 2016;Online: 1–4 Munné S, Grifo J, Wells D. Mosaicism: “survival of the fittest” versus “no embryo left behind. Fertil Steril. 2016;Online: 1–4
27.
go back to reference Mamas T, Gordon A, Brown A, Harper J, Sen Gupta S. Detection of aneuploidy by array comparative genomic hybridization using cell lines to mimic a mosaic trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:943–7.CrossRefPubMed Mamas T, Gordon A, Brown A, Harper J, Sen Gupta S. Detection of aneuploidy by array comparative genomic hybridization using cell lines to mimic a mosaic trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:943–7.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Scott Jr RT, Galiano D. The challenge of embryonic mosaicism in preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril. 2016;32:337–8. Scott Jr RT, Galiano D. The challenge of embryonic mosaicism in preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril. 2016;32:337–8.
29.
go back to reference Esfandiari N, Bentov Y, Casper RF. Trophectoderm biopsy for aneuploidy screening using different platforms and conflicting test results. ESHRE O-034, Munich, Germany, June 29-July 2, 2014 Esfandiari N, Bentov Y, Casper RF. Trophectoderm biopsy for aneuploidy screening using different platforms and conflicting test results. ESHRE O-034, Munich, Germany, June 29-July 2, 2014
30.
go back to reference Orvieto R, Shuly Y, Brengauz M, Feldman B. Should pre-implantation genetic screening be implemented to routine clinical practice? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;Online: 1–3. Orvieto R, Shuly Y, Brengauz M, Feldman B. Should pre-implantation genetic screening be implemented to routine clinical practice? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;Online: 1–3.
31.
go back to reference Shelly KE, Johnson DS, Morrison LS, Carney SM, Boylan CF, Feinberg RF. Exploring the incidence of trophectoderm mosaicism in a population of previously diagnosed embryos. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):S139.CrossRef Shelly KE, Johnson DS, Morrison LS, Carney SM, Boylan CF, Feinberg RF. Exploring the incidence of trophectoderm mosaicism in a population of previously diagnosed embryos. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):S139.CrossRef
32.
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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Wells D, Kaur K, Grifo J, Glassner M, Taylor JC, Fragouli E, et al. Clinical utilisation of a rapid Low-pass whole genome sequencing technique for the diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos prior to implantation. J Med Genet. 2014;51(8):553–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wells D, Kaur K, Grifo J, Glassner M, Taylor JC, Fragouli E, et al. Clinical utilisation of a rapid Low-pass whole genome sequencing technique for the diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos prior to implantation. J Med Genet. 2014;51(8):553–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2089–90.CrossRefPubMed Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2089–90.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Further evidence against use of PGS in poor prognosis patients: report of normal births after transfer of embryos reported as aneuploid. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):e59.CrossRef Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Further evidence against use of PGS in poor prognosis patients: report of normal births after transfer of embryos reported as aneuploid. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):e59.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Ledbetter DH, Zachary JM, Simpson JL, Golbus MS, Pergament E, Jackson L, et al. Cytogenetic results from the US collaborative study on CVS. Prenat Diagn. 1992;12:317–45.CrossRefPubMed Ledbetter DH, Zachary JM, Simpson JL, Golbus MS, Pergament E, Jackson L, et al. Cytogenetic results from the US collaborative study on CVS. Prenat Diagn. 1992;12:317–45.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Tarozzi N, Borini A, Wells D. The developmental potential of mosaic embryos. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3 Suppl):e96.CrossRef Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Tarozzi N, Borini A, Wells D. The developmental potential of mosaic embryos. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3 Suppl):e96.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Human embryo mosaicism: did we drop the ball on chromosomal testing?
Authors
Navid Esfandiari
Megan E. Bunnell
Robert F. Casper
Publication date
01-11-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0797-y

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 11/2016 Go to the issue