Literature DB >> 18829021

Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential.

Shiri Barbash-Hazan1, Tsvia Frumkin, Mira Malcov, Yuval Yaron, Tania Cohen, Foad Azem, Ami Amit, Dalit Ben-Yosef.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence of embryos' self-correction during preimplantation development in terms of mosaicism and in correlation with its developmental stage.
DESIGN: Prospective study to compare the chromosome status of embryos on day 3 with that of day 5, in correlation with their developmental stage.
SETTING: In vitro fertilization unit of a university-affiliated hospital. PATIENT(S): Eighty-three aneuploid embryos. INTERVENTION(S): Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) reanalysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Day 3 embryos classified as mosaic or chromosomally abnormal by preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) were reanalyzed on day 5. The results were evaluated in correlation with the embryos' developmental stage. RESULT(S): Out of 83 day 3 aneuploid embryos, 15 (18.1%) were diagnosed with mosaicism. The FISH reanalysis on day 5 demonstrated that 27 embryos (32.6%) were partly or entirely normal disomic. Of these 83 aneuploid embryos, 8 (9.7%) underwent complete self-correction. The PGS results demonstrated that 26.5% of the embryos were trisomic, of which 41.0% underwent trisomic rescue by day 5. Self-correction was in correlation with the embryo's developmental stage, i.e., 38.1% of aneuploid embryos that developed to the blastocyst stage underwent self-correction compared with only 12.5% of embryos that only cleaved after biopsy. CONCLUSION(S): Our results demonstrate that self-correction of aneuploid and mosaic embryos occurs probably more significantly during development toward the blastocyst stage than in delayed embryos. In addition, trisomic embryos correct themselves more than other aneuploidies. These findings suggest that PGS results must be interpreted with caution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18829021     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1761

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


  51 in total

1.  Singling out genetic disorders and disease.

Authors:  Martine De Rycke
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 11.117

2.  Twenty-four chromosome FISH in human IVF embryos reveals patterns of post-zygotic chromosome segregation and nuclear organisation.

Authors:  D Ioannou; K G L Fonseka; E J Meershoek; A R Thornhill; A Abogrein; M Ellis; D K Griffin
Journal:  Chromosome Res       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 5.239

3.  On the paternal origin of trisomy 21 Down syndrome.

Authors:  Maj A Hultén; Suketu D Patel; Magnus Westgren; Nikos Papadogiannakis; Anna Maria Jonsson; Jon Jonasson; Erik Iwarsson
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 2.009

Review 4.  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

5.  Establishment and characterization of human embryonic stem cell lines, Turkey perspectives.

Authors:  Zafer Nihat Candan; Semra Kahraman
Journal:  In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 2.416

Review 6.  Human embryo mosaicism: did we drop the ball on chromosomal testing?

Authors:  Navid Esfandiari; Megan E Bunnell; Robert F Casper
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts.

Authors:  L E Northrop; N R Treff; B Levy; R T Scott
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 4.025

8.  SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH.

Authors:  Nathan R Treff; Brynn Levy; Jing Su; Lesley E Northrop; Xin Tao; Richard T Scott
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 4.025

9.  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

10.  Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol.

Authors:  D S Johnson; G Gemelos; J Baner; A Ryan; C Cinnioglu; M Banjevic; R Ross; M Alper; B Barrett; J Frederick; D Potter; B Behr; M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-01-24       Impact factor: 6.918

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.