Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 6/2020

01-12-2020 | Review Article

Chromosomal Analysis of Pre-implantation Embryos: Its Place in Current IVF Practice

Authors: Sadhana K. Desai, MD; (Bom), FRCOG, London, Vijay S. Mangoli, PhD, (Mum)

Published in: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India | Issue 6/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The intersection of ART and molecular genetic science is fast growing. It is now possible to utilize the advances in molecular genetics for clinical application to detect chromosomal aberrations in preimplanting embryos.
As molecular genetic techniques have improved, it is now possible to test the complete characterization of human genome variation with reasonable accuracy. In this article, we have tried to summarize the common current indications of chromosomal analysis of preimplanting embryos in couples having various chromosomal dominant or chromosomal recessive heritable disorders leading to the birth of a new born baby with chromosomal aberrations or leading to repeated miscarriage.

Conclusion

The currently available techniques of embryo biopsy have their advantages and shortcomings. Today, preimplantation genetic testing to diagnose a euploid embryo is widely used in clinical practice in couples undergoing IVF ET treatment. By eliminating the transfer of aneuploid embryos, the pregnancy rate improves per embryo transfer and it shortens the time of conception from the start of IVF treatment. We have also discussed the current scenario of the place of PGT-A for routine use in IVF treatment procedure in view of the possible risk of losing euploid embryos due to the shortcoming of the embryo biopsy procedure.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Graffin DK, Ogur C. Chromosomal analysis in IVF: Just how useful is it? Reproduction. 2018;156(1):F29–50.CrossRef Graffin DK, Ogur C. Chromosomal analysis in IVF: Just how useful is it? Reproduction. 2018;156(1):F29–50.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1071–9.CrossRef Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1071–9.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Carvalho F, Coonen E, Goossens V, Kokkali G, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the organisation of PGT. ESHRE PGT Consortium Steering Committee, Hum Reprod Open. 2020;29(3):21. Carvalho F, Coonen E, Goossens V, Kokkali G, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the organisation of PGT. ESHRE PGT Consortium Steering Committee, Hum Reprod Open. 2020;29(3):21.
4.
go back to reference Seidel F. Die Entwicklugspotenzen einen isolierten Blastomere des Zweizellenstadiums im Saugetierei. Naturwissenschaften. 1952;39:355–6.CrossRef Seidel F. Die Entwicklugspotenzen einen isolierten Blastomere des Zweizellenstadiums im Saugetierei. Naturwissenschaften. 1952;39:355–6.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Gardner RL, Edwards RG. Control of the sex ratio at full term in the rabbit by transferring sexed blastocysts. Nature. 1968;218:346–8.CrossRef Gardner RL, Edwards RG. Control of the sex ratio at full term in the rabbit by transferring sexed blastocysts. Nature. 1968;218:346–8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Wilton LJ, Trounson AO. Biopsy of preimplantation mouse embryos: development of micromanipulated embryos and proliferation of single blastomeres in vitro. Biol Reprod. 1989;40(1):145–52.CrossRef Wilton LJ, Trounson AO. Biopsy of preimplantation mouse embryos: development of micromanipulated embryos and proliferation of single blastomeres in vitro. Biol Reprod. 1989;40(1):145–52.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Monk M, Muggleton-Harris A, Rawlings E, Whittingham DG. Preimplantation diagnosis of HPRT-deficient male, and carrier female mouse embryos by trophectoderm biopsy. Hum Reprod. 1988;3:377–81.CrossRef Monk M, Muggleton-Harris A, Rawlings E, Whittingham DG. Preimplantation diagnosis of HPRT-deficient male, and carrier female mouse embryos by trophectoderm biopsy. Hum Reprod. 1988;3:377–81.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Munné S, Weier HU, Stein J, Grifo J, Cohen J. A fast and efficient method for simultaneous X and Y in situ hybridization of human blastomeres. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993;10:82–90.CrossRef Munné S, Weier HU, Stein J, Grifo J, Cohen J. A fast and efficient method for simultaneous X and Y in situ hybridization of human blastomeres. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993;10:82–90.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Wells D, Sherlock JK, Handyside AH, Delhanty JD. Detailed chromosomal and molecular genetic analysis of single cells by whole genome amplification and comparative genomic hybridization. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999;27:1214–8.CrossRef Wells D, Sherlock JK, Handyside AH, Delhanty JD. Detailed chromosomal and molecular genetic analysis of single cells by whole genome amplification and comparative genomic hybridization. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999;27:1214–8.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Voullaire L, Wilton L, Slater H, Williamson R. Detection of aneuploidy in single cells using comparative genomic hybridization. Prenat Diagn. 1999;19:846–51.CrossRef Voullaire L, Wilton L, Slater H, Williamson R. Detection of aneuploidy in single cells using comparative genomic hybridization. Prenat Diagn. 1999;19:846–51.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Rechitsky S, Kuliev A, Sharapova T, et al. PGD impact on stem cell transplantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(Supplement 3):S-2. Rechitsky S, Kuliev A, Sharapova T, et al. PGD impact on stem cell transplantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(Supplement 3):S-2.
12.
go back to reference Kuchenbacker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRACA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402–16.CrossRef Kuchenbacker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRACA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402–16.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Kuliev A, Pachalchuk T, Rechitsky S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for heart disease determined by genetic factors. Arrhythm Open Access. 2015;1(1):103–6. Kuliev A, Pachalchuk T, Rechitsky S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for heart disease determined by genetic factors. Arrhythm Open Access. 2015;1(1):103–6.
14.
go back to reference Fodina V, Dudorova A, Alksere B, et al. The application of PGT-A for carriers of balanced structural chromosomal rearrangements. J Gynaecol Endocrinol. 2019;35:18–23.CrossRef Fodina V, Dudorova A, Alksere B, et al. The application of PGT-A for carriers of balanced structural chromosomal rearrangements. J Gynaecol Endocrinol. 2019;35:18–23.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, 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;100:697–703.CrossRef Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, 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;100:697–703.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Forman EJ, Hong KH, Franasiak JM, et al. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes from the BEST trial: single embryo transfer with aneuploidy screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):157-e1.CrossRef Forman EJ, Hong KH, Franasiak JM, et al. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes from the BEST trial: single embryo transfer with aneuploidy screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):157-e1.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Reignier A, Lammers J, Barriere P, Freour T. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36:380–7.CrossRef Reignier A, Lammers J, Barriere P, Freour T. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36:380–7.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Munné S. Status of preimplantation genetic testing and embryo selection Cooper Genomics, Trumbull, Connecticut, USA; Yale University. Spain: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences; and Overture LifeBarcelona; 2018. Munné S. Status of preimplantation genetic testing and embryo selection Cooper Genomics, Trumbull, Connecticut, USA; Yale University. Spain: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences; and Overture LifeBarcelona; 2018.
21.
go back to reference Brezina PR MD, Tobler KJ MD, et al. If any mosaicism is identified in the trophectoderm, there is a 26% chance of mosaicism being present in the inner cell mass; a clinical paradigm, do you transfer mosaic embryos? Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3):e238. Brezina PR MD, Tobler KJ MD, et al. If any mosaicism is identified in the trophectoderm, there is a 26% chance of mosaicism being present in the inner cell mass; a clinical paradigm, do you transfer mosaic embryos? Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3):e238.
22.
go back to reference Practice Committee and Genetic Counseling Professional Group (GCPG) of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Clinical management of mosaic results from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of blastocysts: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:246–54.CrossRef Practice Committee and Genetic Counseling Professional Group (GCPG) of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Clinical management of mosaic results from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of blastocysts: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:246–54.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Munne S, Blazek M, Large M, et al. A detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(1):62–71.CrossRef Munne S, Blazek M, Large M, et al. A detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(1):62–71.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Munne S, Grifo D, Wells D, et al. Mosaicism: “survival of the fittest” versus “no embryo left behind”. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(5):1146–9.CrossRef Munne S, Grifo D, Wells D, et al. Mosaicism: “survival of the fittest” versus “no embryo left behind”. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(5):1146–9.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Bolton H, Graham SJL, Zernicka-Goetz M, et al. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11165.CrossRef Bolton H, Graham SJL, Zernicka-Goetz M, et al. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11165.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Fiorentino F, Gleicher N, Capalbo A, et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22:845–57.CrossRef Fiorentino F, Gleicher N, Capalbo A, et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22:845–57.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Harper JC, SenGupta S, Vesela K, Thornhill A, Dequeker E, Coonen E, Morris MA. Accreditation of the PGD laboratory. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1051–65.CrossRef Harper JC, SenGupta S, Vesela K, Thornhill A, Dequeker E, Coonen E, Morris MA. Accreditation of the PGD laboratory. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1051–65.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Bellver J, Bosch E, Espinós JJ, et al. Second-generation preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in assisted reproduction: a SWOT analysis. RBM Online. 2019;39(6):905–15.PubMed Bellver J, Bosch E, Espinós JJ, et al. Second-generation preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in assisted reproduction: a SWOT analysis. RBM Online. 2019;39(6):905–15.PubMed
30.
go back to reference Yang L, Lv Q, Chen W, et al. Presence of embryonic DNA in the culture medium. Oncotarget. 2017;8(40):67805–9.CrossRef Yang L, Lv Q, Chen W, et al. Presence of embryonic DNA in the culture medium. Oncotarget. 2017;8(40):67805–9.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference CR Lluesa. (2019). RBM Online. 39(Supplement 1): E32 CR Lluesa. (2019). RBM Online. 39(Supplement 1): E32
Metadata
Title
Chromosomal Analysis of Pre-implantation Embryos: Its Place in Current IVF Practice
Authors
Sadhana K. Desai, MD; (Bom), FRCOG, London
Vijay S. Mangoli, PhD, (Mum)
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
Springer India
Published in
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0971-9202
Electronic ISSN: 0975-6434
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-020-01383-9

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 6/2020 Go to the issue