PURPOSE: To compare single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) microarray platforms to evaluate embryos for parental translocation imbalances and aneuploidy. METHODS: A retrospective review of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening (PGD/PGS) results of 498 embryos from 63 couples undergoing 75 in vitro fertilization cycles due to parental carriers of a reciprocal translocation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between SNP and aCGH microarrays when comparing the prevalence of embryos that were euploid with no translocation imbalance, euploidy with a parental translocation imbalance or aneuploid with or without the parental chromosome imbalance. The clinical pregnancy rates were also equivalent for SNP (60 %) versus aCGH (65 %) microarrays. Of 498 diagnosed embryos, 45 % (226/498) were chromosomally normal without translocation errors or aneuploidy, 22 % (112/498) were euploid but had a parentally derived unbalanced chromosomal segregant, 8 % (42/498) harbored both a translocation imbalance and aneuploidy and 24 % (118/498) of embryos were genetically balanced for the parental reciprocal translocation but were aneuploid for other chromosomes. The overall clinical pregnancy rate per IVF cycle following SNP or aCGH microarray analysis was 61 % and was higher if the biopsy was done on blastocysts (65 %) versus cleavage stage embryos (59 %), although not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: SNP or aCGH microarray technologies demonstrate equivalent clinical findings that maximize the pregnancy potential in patients with known parental reciprocal chromosomal translocations.
PURPOSE: To compare single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) microarray platforms to evaluate embryos for parental translocation imbalances and aneuploidy. METHODS: A retrospective review of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening (PGD/PGS) results of 498 embryos from 63 couples undergoing 75 in vitro fertilization cycles due to parental carriers of a reciprocal translocation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between SNP and aCGH microarrays when comparing the prevalence of embryos that were euploid with no translocation imbalance, euploidy with a parental translocation imbalance or aneuploid with or without the parental chromosome imbalance. The clinical pregnancy rates were also equivalent for SNP (60 %) versus aCGH (65 %) microarrays. Of 498 diagnosed embryos, 45 % (226/498) were chromosomally normal without translocation errors or aneuploidy, 22 % (112/498) were euploid but had a parentally derived unbalanced chromosomal segregant, 8 % (42/498) harbored both a translocation imbalance and aneuploidy and 24 % (118/498) of embryos were genetically balanced for the parental reciprocal translocation but were aneuploid for other chromosomes. The overall clinical pregnancy rate per IVF cycle following SNP or aCGH microarray analysis was 61 % and was higher if the biopsy was done on blastocysts (65 %) versus cleavage stage embryos (59 %), although not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: SNP or aCGH microarray technologies demonstrate equivalent clinical findings that maximize the pregnancy potential in patients with known parental reciprocal chromosomal translocations.
Authors: Baris Ata; Brian Kaplan; Hal Danzer; Michael Glassner; Michael Opsahl; Seang Lin Tan; Santiago Munné Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Francesca Romana Grati; Andrea Barlocco; Beatrice Grimi; Silvia Milani; Giuditta Frascoli; Anna Maria Di Meco; Rosaria Liuti; Anna Trotta; Sara Chinetti; Francesca Dulcetti; Anna Maria Ruggeri; Simona De Toffol; Maurizio Clementi; Federico Maggi; Giuseppe Simoni Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: J C Harper; L Wilton; J Traeger-Synodinos; V Goossens; C Moutou; S B SenGupta; T Pehlivan Budak; P Renwick; M De Rycke; J P M Geraedts; G Harton Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Brooke Hodes-Wertz; Jamie Grifo; Shahin Ghadir; Brian Kaplan; Carl A Laskin; Michael Glassner; Santiago Munné Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: E Mateu-Brull; L Rodrigo; V Peinado; A Mercader; I Campos-Galindo; F Bronet; S García-Herrero; M Florensa; M Milán; C Rubio Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Liying Yan; Lei Huang; Liya Xu; Jin Huang; Fei Ma; Xiaohui Zhu; Yaqiong Tang; Mingshan Liu; Ying Lian; Ping Liu; Rong Li; Sijia Lu; Fuchou Tang; Jie Qiao; X Sunney Xie Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 11.205