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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Reproductive Health
Published in: Reproductive Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Attitudes of sperm, egg and embryo donors and recipients towards genetic information and screening of donors

Authors: David J. Amor, Annabelle Kerr, Nandini Somanathan, Alison McEwen, Marianne Tome, Jan Hodgson, Sharon Lewis

Published in: Reproductive Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Gamete and embryo donors undergo genetic screening procedures in order to maximise the health of donor-conceived offspring. In the era of genomic medicine, expanded genetic screening may be offered to donors for the purpose of avoiding transmission of harmful genetic mutations. The objective of this study was to explore the attitudes of donors and recipients toward the expanded genetic screening of donors.

Methods

Qualitative interview study with thematic analysis, undertaken in a tertiary fertility centre. Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with eleven recipients and nine donors from three different cohorts (sperm, egg and embryo donors/recipients).

Results

Donors and recipients acknowledged the importance of genetic information and were comfortable with the existing level of genetic screening of donors. Recipients recognised some potential benefits of expanded genetic screening of donors; however both recipients and donors were apprehensive about extended genomic technologies, with concerns about how this information would be used and the ethics of genetic selectivity.

Conclusion

Participants in donor programs support some level of genetic screening of donors, but are wary of expanding genetic screening beyond current levels.
Literature
1.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive M. Interests, obligations, and rights of the donor in gamete donation. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(1):22–7.CrossRef
2.
Dondorp W, De Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, Barri P, Diedrich K, Eichenlaub-Ritter U, Tuttelmann F, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 21: genetic screening of gamete donors: ethical issues. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(7):1353–9.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Isley L, Falk RE, Shamonki J, Sims CA, Callum P. Management of the risks for inherited disease in donor-conceived offspring. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(6):1479–84.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Landaburu I, Gonzalvo MC, Clavero A, Ramirez JP, Yoldi A, Mozas J, Zamora S, Martinez L, Castilla JA. Genetic testing of sperm donors for cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy: evaluation of clinical utility. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(1):183–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Sims CA, Callum P, Ray M, Iger J, Falk RE. Genetic testing of sperm donors: survey of current practices. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):126–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Callum P, Urbina MT, Falk RE, Alvarez-Diaz JA, Benjamin I, Sims CA. Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) after conception using gametes from anonymous donors: recommendations for the future. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(3):1006. e1001-1002CrossRefPubMed
7.
Daar JF, Brzyski RG. Genetic screening of sperm and oocyte donors: ethical and policy implications. JAMA. 2009;302(15):1702–4.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Maron BJ, Lesser JR, Schiller NB, Harris KM, Brown C, Rehm HL. Implications of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy transmitted by sperm donation. JAMA. 2009;302(15):1681–4.CrossRefPubMed
9.
van der Hout S, Holtkamp KC, Henneman L, de Wert G, Dondorp WJ. Advantages of expanded universal carrier screening: what is at stake? Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;25(1):17–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Lazarin GA, Haque IS. Expanded carrier screening: a review of early implementation and literature. Semin Perinatol. 2016;40(1):29–34.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Edwards JG, Feldman G, Goldberg J, Gregg AR, Norton ME, Rose NC, Schneider A, Stoll K, Wapner R, Watson MS. Expanded carrier screening in reproductive medicine-points to consider: a joint statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Society of genetic counselors, Perinatal quality foundation, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(3):653–62.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Henneman L, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, Cornel MC, van El CG, Forzano F, Hall A, Howard HC, Janssens S, Kayserili H, et al. Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(6):e1–e12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Martin J, Asan, Yi Y, Alberola T, Rodriguez-Iglesias B, Jimenez-Almazan J, Li Q, Du HQ AP, Ruiz A, et al. Comprehensive carrier genetic test using next-generation deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing in infertile couples wishing to conceive through assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(5):1286–93.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Dewey FE, Chen R, Cordero SP, Ormond KE, Caleshu C, Karczewski KJ, Whirl-Carrillo M, Wheeler MT, Dudley JT, Byrnes JK, et al. Phased whole-genome genetic risk in a family quartet using a major allele reference sequence. PLoS Genet. 2011;7(9):e1002280.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Sawyer N, Blyth E, Kramer W, Frith L. A survey of 1700 women who formed their families using donor spermatozoa. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27(4):436–47.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.): techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008.
17.
Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. 1965;12(4):436–45.CrossRef
18.
Rodino IS, Burton PJ, Sanders KA. Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: an Australian perspective. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;22(3):303–11.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Cho D, McGowan ML, Metcalfe J, Sharp RR. Expanded carrier screening in reproductive healthcare: perspectives from genetics professionals. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(6):1725–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Holtkamp KC, Vos EM, Rigter T, Lakeman P, Henneman L, Cornel MC. Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of genetic carrier screening in a changing landscape. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Attitudes of sperm, egg and embryo donors and recipients towards genetic information and screening of donors
Authors
David J. Amor
Annabelle Kerr
Nandini Somanathan
Alison McEwen
Marianne Tome
Jan Hodgson
Sharon Lewis
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Reproductive Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1742-4755
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-018-0468-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Reproductive Health 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Women’s preferences for contraceptive counseling in Mexico: Results from a focus group study

Study protocol

A multi-center, randomized controlled clinical trial of the application of a shortened protocol of long-acting Triptorelin down-regulated prior to IVF/ICSI among patients with endometriosis: A protocol

Research

Developing a model for integrating sexual and reproductive health services with HIV prevention and care in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Research

Does short message service improve focused antenatal care visit and skilled birth attendance? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Study protocol

A comprehensive sexual health care program for educable intellectually disabled adolescent girls: protocol for a mixed methods study

Review

Prevalence and determinants of adolescent pregnancy in Africa: a systematic review and Meta-analysis