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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 7/2016

01-07-2016 | Review

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences?

Authors: Paul R. Brezina, Raymond Anchan, William G. Kearns

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 7/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the review was to define the various diagnostic platforms currently available to perform preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and describe in a clear and balanced manner the various strengths and weaknesses of these technologies.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted. We used the terms “preimplantation genetic testing,” “preimplantation genetic diagnosis,” “preimplantation genetic screening,” “preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy,” “PGD,” “PGS,” and “PGD-A” to search through PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from the year 2000 to April 2016. Bibliographies of articles were also searched for relevant studies. When possible, larger randomized controlled trials were used. However, for some emerging data, only data from meeting abstracts were available.

Results

PGS is emerging as one of the most valuable tools to enhance pregnancy success with assisted reproductive technologies. While all of the current diagnostic platforms currently available have various advantages and disadvantages, some platforms, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), are capable of evaluating far more data points than has been previously possible. The emerging complexity of different technologies, especially with the utilization of more sophisticated tools such as NGS, requires an understanding by clinicians in order to request the best test for their patients..

Conclusion

Ultimately, the choice of which diagnostic platform is utilized should be individualized to the needs of both the clinic and the patient. Such a decision must incorporate the risk tolerance of both the patient and provider, fiscal considerations, and other factors such as the ability to counsel patients on their testing results and how these may or may not impact clinical outcomes.
Literature
1.
Brezina PR, Kearns WG. The evolving role of genetics in reproductive medicine. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2014;41:41–55.CrossRef
2.
Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2015;350:g7611.
3.
Brezina PR, Brezina DS, Kearns WG. Preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2012;345:e5908.
4.
Hassold T, Chen N, Funkhouser J, et al. A cytogenetic study of 1000 spontaneous abortions. Ann Hum Genet. 1980;44:151–78.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, et al. Technical update: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can: JOGC = Journal d’obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC. 2015;37:451–63.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kalousek DK, Pantzar T, Tsai M, Paradice B. Early spontaneous abortion: morphologic and karyotypic findings in 3,912 cases. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1993;29:53–61.PubMed
7.
Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344:768–70.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Jobanputra V, Sobrino A, Kinney A, Kline J, Warburton D. Multiplex interphase FISH as a screen for common aneuploidies in spontaneous abortions. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2002;17:1166–70.CrossRef
9.
Wong KM, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Limitations of embryo selection methods. Semin Reprod Med. 2014;32:127–33.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:454–66.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertility and sterility 2008;90:S136-43.
13.
Harper J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2010;25:821–3.CrossRef
14.
Committee Opinion No ACOG. 430: preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:766–7.CrossRef
15.
Schoolcraft WB, Treff NR, Stevens JM, Ferry K, Katz-Jaffe M, Scott Jr RT. Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:638–40.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Scott Jr RT, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff NR. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:870–5.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Scott Jr 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.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Tobler KJ, Ross R, Benner AT, Du L, Brezina PR, Kearns WG. The use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) and diagnosis (PGD). Fertil Steril. 2014;102:e184–5.CrossRef
19.
Tobler KJ, Brezina PR, Benner AT, Du L, Boyd B, Kearns WG. 23-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) for recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) in 687 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and 5871 embryos. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:S54.CrossRef
20.
Brezina P, Tobler K, Benner A, Du L, Boyd B, Kearns W. Evaluation of 571 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and 4,873 embryos using 23-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Fertil Steril. 2012;97:S23–4.
21.
Technology PCotASfRMatSfAR. ASRM practice committee brief communication on pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy: a committee opinion. 2016: En Press.
22.
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.
Brezina PR, Tobler K, Benner AT, Du L, Xu X, Kearns WG. All 23 chromosomes have significant levels of aneuploidy in recurrent pregnancy loss couples. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:S7.CrossRef
24.
Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, et al. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16:944–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Munne S, Weier HU, Grifo J, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod. 1994;51:373–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Novik V, Moulton EB, Sisson ME, et al. The accuracy of chromosomal microarray testing for identification of embryonic mosaicism in human blastocysts. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7:18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Wang BB, Rubin CH, Williams 3rd J. Mosaicism in chorionic villus sampling: an analysis of incidence and chromosomes involved in 2612 consecutive cases. Prenat Diagn. 1993;13:179–90.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Brezina PR, Ross R, Kaufmann R, Anchan R, Zhao Y, Kearns WG. Genetic normalization of differentiating aneuploid cleavage stage embryos. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:S69.CrossRef
29.
Brezina PR, Kutteh WH, Bailey AP, Ke RW. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is an excellent tool, but not perfect: a guide to counseling patients considering PGS. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:49–50.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Capalbo A, Wright G, Elliott T, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Nagy ZP. 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 (Oxford, England). 2013;28:2298–307.CrossRef
31.
De Vos A, Staessen C, De Rycke M, et al. Impact of cleavage-stage embryo biopsy in view of PGD on human blastocyst implantation: a prospective cohort of single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2009;24:2988–96.CrossRef
32.
Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Classic and cutting-edge strategies for the management of early pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2014;41:1–18.CrossRef
33.
Dreesen J, Destouni A, Kourlaba G, et al. Evaluation of PCR-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis applied to monogenic diseases: a collaborative ESHRE PGD consortium study. Eur J Hum Gen: EJHG 2013.
34.
Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Chipko C, Brezina PR, Benner AT, Du L, Christianson MS, Kearns WG. Deletions and duplications identified by 23 chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray are associated with aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:S21.CrossRef
36.
Christianson MS, Brezina PR, Benner AT, Du L, Siegel A, Kearns WG. Chromosomal duplications (≥200 KILOBASES (KB)) are more common than deletions ≥200 KB in developing human embryos as identified by 23 chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:S21–2.CrossRef
37.
38.
39.
Fiegler H, Geigl JB, Langer S, et al. High resolution array-CGH analysis of single cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:e15.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14:703–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Du L, Brezina P, Benner A, Swelstad B, Gunn M, Kearns W. The rate of de novo and inherited aneuploidy as determined by 23-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism microarray (SNP) in embryos generated from parents with known chromosomal translocations. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:S221.CrossRef
42.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Handyside AH. PGD and aneuploidy screening for 24 chromosomes by genome-wide SNP analysis: seeing the wood and the trees. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:686–91.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Siegel A, Brezina PR, Benner AT, Du L, Gunn M, Kearns WG. 23-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray detects genomic aberrations that may be missed by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) arrays in preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Fertil Steril. 2011;96:S224.CrossRef
45.
Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, et al. Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur J Hum Genet: EJHG. 2015;23:901–6.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Validation report for next generation sequencing for chromosomes (Ploidy) as compared to CGH microarrays. 2015.
47.
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;97:819–24.CrossRefPubMed
48.
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.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Zheng H, Jin H, Liu L, Liu J, Wang WH. Application of next-generation sequencing for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of human preimplantation embryos. Mol Cytogenet. 2015;8:38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, et al. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1375–82.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Fiorentino F, Bono S, Biricik A, et al. Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2014;29:2802–13.CrossRef
52.
Treff NR, Fedick A, Tao X, Devkota B, Taylor D, Scott RT. Evaluation of targeted next-generation sequencing–based preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic disease. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1377–84. e6.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Damerla RR, Chatterjee B, Li Y, Francis RJ, Fatakia SN, Lo CW. Ion Torrent sequencing for conducting genome-wide scans for mutation mapping analysis. Mamm Genome. 2014;25:120–8.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Metadata
Title
Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences?
Authors
Paul R. Brezina
Raymond Anchan
William G. Kearns
Publication date
01-07-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 7/2016
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0740-2

Other articles of this Issue 7/2016

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 7/2016 Go to the issue

Reproductive Physiology and Disease

Follicular fluid soluble receptor for advanced glycation endproducts (sRAGE): a potential protective role in polycystic ovary syndrome

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Comparison of differences in development potentials between frozen-thawed D5 and D6 blastocysts and their relationship with pregnancy outcomes

Genetics

Discrepant diagnosis rate of array comparative genomic hybridization in thawed euploid blastocysts

Reproductive Physiology and Disease

The presence of heparins during decidualization modulates the response of human endometrial stromal cells to IL-1β in vitro

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

The total pregnancy potential per oocyte aspiration after assisted reproduction—in how many cycles are biologically competent oocytes available?

Genetics

Clinical application of next-generation sequencing in preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles for Robertsonian and reciprocal translocations