Literature DB >> 14645172

Chromosomally abnormal cells are not selected for the extra-embryonic compartment of the human preimplantation embryo at the blastocyst stage.

Josien G Derhaag1, Edith Coonen, Marijke Bras, J Marij Bergers Janssen, Rosie Ignoul-Vanvuchelen, Joep P M Geraedts, Johannes L H Evers, John C M Dumoulin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although well defined for embryos at cleavage stages, the occurrence and frequency of chromosomal aberrations in human blastocysts is relatively unknown. It has been reported that only one in four blastocysts is comprised totally of chromosomally normal cells. One of the selection mechanisms for the embryo proper to become free of these chromosomally abnormal cells would be to sequester them to the extra-embryonic compartment during development. The study aim was to investigate whether such a mechanism of selection exists in human preimplantation embryos.
METHODS: Inner cell mass (ICM)/trophectoderm (TE) differentiation was performed, followed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH), to study the chromosomal distribution in both populations of cells.
RESULTS: Of the 94 successfully analysed blastocysts, 68.8 +/- 1.5% of all analysable nuclei per blastocyst showed a disomic chromosomal content. Only 22.6% of blastocysts analysed were classified as normal. Of the embryos classified as abnormal at the blastocyst stage, 11.9% showed a simple mosaic pattern and 32.1% a complex mosaic pattern. An equally large group of blastocysts showed either a chaotic pattern (16.7%), or the chromosomal pattern could not be classified. The average degree of normal cells in the ICM (67.9%) was similar to the degree observed in the TE (69.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that chromosomally abnormal cells are not preferentially segregating to the extra-embryonic compartment of the human preimplantation embryo at the blastocyst stage. Hence, other mechanisms should be responsible for an absence of chromosomally abnormal cells in the embryo proper at later stages of development. One possible mechanism might be the elimination of the chromosomally abnormal cells by selective cell death activation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14645172     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deg485

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  9 in total

1.  Use of cross-species in-situ hybridization (ZOO-FISH) to assess chromosome abnormalities in day-6 in-vivo- or in-vitro-produced sheep embryos.

Authors:  Gianfranco Coppola; Basil Alexander; Dino Di Berardino; Elizabeth St John; Parvathi K Basrur; W Allan King
Journal:  Chromosome Res       Date:  2007-05-10       Impact factor: 5.239

Review 2.  PGS-FISH in reproductive medicine and perspective directions for improvement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sandra Zamora; Ana Clavero; M Carmen Gonzalvo; Juan de Dios Luna Del Castillo; Jose Antonio Roldán-Nofuentes; Juan Mozas; Jose Antonio Castilla
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass.

Authors:  D S Johnson; C Cinnioglu; R Ross; A Filby; G Gemelos; M Hill; A Ryan; D Smotrich; M Rabinowitz; M J Murray
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-07-19       Impact factor: 4.025

Review 4.  Chromosomal instability in mammalian pre-implantation embryos: potential causes, detection methods, and clinical consequences.

Authors:  Brittany L Daughtry; Shawn L Chavez
Journal:  Cell Tissue Res       Date:  2015-11-21       Impact factor: 5.249

5.  Error-prone nonhomologous end joining repair operates in human pluripotent stem cells during late G2.

Authors:  Alexandra N Bogomazova; Maria A Lagarkova; Leyla V Tskhovrebova; Maria V Shutova; Sergey L Kiselev
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.682

6.  The Effect of Prolonged Culture of Chromosomally Abnormal Human Embryos on The Rate of Diploid Cells.

Authors:  Masood Bazrgar; Hamid Gourabi; Poopak Eftekhari-Yazdi; Hamed Vazirinasab; Mostafa Fakhri; Fatemeh Hassani; Mohamad Chehrazi; Mojtaba Rezazadeh Valojerdi
Journal:  Int J Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-12-23

Review 7.  Pre-implantation genetic testing: Past, present, future.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Takeuchi
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2020-10-13

Review 8.  Preimplantation chromosomal mosaics, chimaeras and confined placental mosaicism.

Authors:  John D West; Clare A Everett
Journal:  Reprod Fertil       Date:  2022-04-05

9.  Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential.

Authors:  Helen Bolton; Sarah J L Graham; Niels Van der Aa; Parveen Kumar; Koen Theunis; Elia Fernandez Gallardo; Thierry Voet; Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 14.919

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.