Literature DB >> 17141767

Removal of 2 cells from cleavage stage embryos is likely to reduce the efficacy of chromosomal tests that are used to enhance implantation rates.

Jacques Cohen1, Dagan Wells, Santiago Munné.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether differences in results between studies that involve preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosome testing are affected by technology, such as the number of cells to be biopsied or by differences in study design.
DESIGN: Evaluation of studies of aneuploidy testing according to the use of probes, fixation technology, error determination, and number of cells per embryo analyzed.
SETTING: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis laboratories. PATIENT(S): Patients in published studies who underwent preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility or repeated pregnancy loss. INTERVENTION(S): As determined by each evaluated study, the number of biopsied cells and its effect on further development was evaluated by a comparison of models of embryo freezing and partial cell loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Use of probes, fixation strategy, number of biopsied cells, and error rate determination of different published studies. RESULT(S): Differences in results between studies can be explained by the technology used and are not affected necessarily by differences in design and patient allocation. CONCLUSION(S): Studies that contradict the finding that aneuploidy screening improves implantation and lowers miscarriage rates all have > or =1 of the following aspects in common: (I) an excess of cells having been removed; (II) inadequate choice of probes; and (III) suboptimal fixation technology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17141767     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1516

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  26 in total

1.  The effects of different laser pulse lengths on the embryo biopsy procedure and embryo development to the blastocyst stage.

Authors:  Tyl H Taylor; Janice W Gilchrist; Susan V Hallowell; Kelly K Hanshew; John J Orris; Michael J Glassner; J David Wininger
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: present and future.

Authors:  Elpida Fragouli
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosome rearrangements - one blastomere biopsy versus two blastomere biopsy.

Authors:  D Brodie; C E Beyer; E Osborne; V Kralevski; S Rasi; T Osianlis
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 4.  The transcriptome of follicular cells: biological insights and clinical implications for the treatment of infertility.

Authors:  Elpida Fragouli; Maria D Lalioti; Dagan Wells
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2013-09-29       Impact factor: 15.610

5.  Polar body diagnosis - a step in the right direction?

Authors:  Katrin van der Ven; Markus Montag; Hans van der Ven
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-03-14       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 6.  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

Review 7.  Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?

Authors:  Kim Dao Ly; Ashok Agarwal; Zsolt Peter Nagy
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2011-07-09       Impact factor: 3.412

8.  Pregnancy rates after pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy are only superior when trophectoderm biopsy is performed on hatching embryos.

Authors:  Sonali Singh; Elie Hobeika; Eric S Knochenhauer; Michael L Traub
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 9.  The state of "freeze-for-all" in human ARTs.

Authors:  Natalia Basile; Juan A Garcia-Velasco
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 3.412

10.  What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A polar body approach!

Authors:  Joep Geraedts; John Collins; Luca Gianaroli; Veerle Goossens; Alan Handyside; Joyce Harper; Markus Montag; Sjoerd Repping; Andreas Schmutzler
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2009-12-23       Impact factor: 6.918

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.