Literature DB >> 25351780

Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies.

Antonio Capalbo1, Nathan R Treff2, Danilo Cimadomo1, Xin Tao3, Kathleen Upham3, Filippo Maria Ubaldi1, Laura Rienzi1, Richard T Scott2.   

Abstract

Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) methods are being extensively used to select chromosomally normal embryos in human assisted reproduction. Some concerns related to the stage of analysis and which aneuploidy screening method to use still remain. In this study, the reliability of blastocyst-stage aneuploidy screening and the diagnostic performance of the two mostly used CCS methods (quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and array comparative genome hybridization (aCGH)) has been assessed. aCGH aneuploid blastocysts were rebiopsied, blinded, and evaluated by qPCR. Discordant cases were subsequently rebiopsied, blinded, and evaluated by single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array-based CCS. Although 81.7% of embryos showed the same diagnosis when comparing aCGH and qPCR-based CCS, 18.3% (22/120) of embryos gave a discordant result for at least one chromosome. SNP array reanalysis showed that a discordance was reported in ten blastocysts for aCGH, mostly due to false positives, and in four cases for qPCR. The discordant aneuploidy call rate per chromosome was significantly higher for aCGH (5.7%) compared with qPCR (0.6%; P<0.01). To corroborate these findings, 39 embryos were simultaneously biopsied for aCGH and qPCR during blastocyst-stage aneuploidy screening cycles. 35 matched including all 21 euploid embryos. Blinded SNP analysis on rebiopsies of the four embryos matched qPCR. These findings demonstrate the high reliability of diagnosis performed at the blastocyst stage with the use of different CCS methods. However, the application of aCGH can be expected to result in a higher aneuploidy rate than other contemporary methods of CCS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25351780      PMCID: PMC4463508          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.222

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  18 in total

1.  Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study.

Authors:  Richard T Scott; Kathleen Ferry; Jing Su; Xin Tao; Katherine Scott; Nathan R Treff
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 7.329

2.  Is universal application of blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening for embryo selection ready for prime time?

Authors:  Charles L Bormann; Catherine Racowsky
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening.

Authors:  Nathan R Treff; Xin Tao; Kathleen M Ferry; Jing Su; Deanne Taylor; Richard T Scott
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2012-02-18       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Single-gene testing combined with single nucleotide polymorphism microarray preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy: a novel approach in optimizing pregnancy outcome.

Authors:  Paul R Brezina; Andrew Benner; Svetlana Rechitsky; Anver Kuliev; Ekaterina Pomerantseva; Dana Pauling; William G Kearns
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients.

Authors:  William B Schoolcraft; Nathan R Treff; John M Stevens; Kathleen Ferry; Mandy Katz-Jaffe; Richard T Scott
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2011-07-23       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  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

7.  Clinical evaluation of the efficiency of an oocyte donation program using egg cryo-banking.

Authors:  Zsolt P Nagy; Ching-Chien Chang; Daniel B Shapiro; Diana Patricia Bernal; Carlene W Elsner; Dorothy Mitchell-Leef; Andrew A Toledo; Hilton I Kort
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2008-08-09       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  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.

Authors:  Antonio Capalbo; Graham Wright; Thomas Elliott; Filippo Maria Ubaldi; Laura Rienzi; Zsolt Peter Nagy
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  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.

Authors:  Zhihong Yang; Jiaen Liu; Gary S Collins; Shala A Salem; Xiaohong Liu; Sarah S Lyle; Alison C Peck; E Scott Sills; Rifaat D Salem
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 2.009

10.  Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results.

Authors:  Joep Geraedts; Markus Montag; M Cristina Magli; Sjoerd Repping; Alan Handyside; Catherine Staessen; Joyce Harper; Andreas Schmutzler; John Collins; Veerle Goossens; Hans van der Ven; Katerina Vesela; Luca Gianaroli
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2011-09-09       Impact factor: 6.918

View more
  33 in total

1.  An integrated investigation of oocyte developmental competence: expression of key genes in human cumulus cells, morphokinetics of early divisions, blastulation, and euploidy.

Authors:  C Scarica; D Cimadomo; L Dovere; A Giancani; M Stoppa; A Capalbo; F M Ubaldi; L Rienzi; R Canipari
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  Implementing PGD/PGD-A in IVF clinics: considerations for the best laboratory approach and management.

Authors:  Antonio Capalbo; Valeria Romanelli; Danilo Cimadomo; Laura Girardi; Marta Stoppa; Lisa Dovere; Domenico Dell'Edera; Filippo Maria Ubaldi; Laura Rienzi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-07-16       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Continuous embryo culture elicits higher blastulation but similar cumulative delivery rates than sequential: a large prospective study.

Authors:  Danilo Cimadomo; C Scarica; R Maggiulli; G Orlando; D Soscia; L Albricci; S Romano; F Sanges; F M Ubaldi; L Rienzi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle: an option to fully-personalize the treatment in poor prognosis patients undergoing PGT-A.

Authors:  Alberto Vaiarelli; Danilo Cimadomo; Gianluca Gennarelli; Maurizio Guido; Carlo Alviggi; Alessandro Conforti; Claudia Livi; Alberto Revelli; Silvia Colamaria; Cindy Argento; Maddalena Giuliani; Carlo De Angelis; Maria Matteo; Stefano Canosa; Angela D'Alfonso; Valentino Cimadomo; Laura Rienzi; Filippo Maria Ubaldi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 5.  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

6.  Incidence, Origin, and Predictive Model for the Detection and Clinical Management of Segmental Aneuploidies in Human Embryos.

Authors:  Laura Girardi; Munevver Serdarogullari; Cristina Patassini; Maurizio Poli; Marco Fabiani; Silvia Caroselli; Onder Coban; Necati Findikli; Fazilet Kubra Boynukalin; Mustafa Bahceci; Rupali Chopra; Rita Canipari; Danilo Cimadomo; Laura Rienzi; Filippo Ubaldi; Eva Hoffmann; Carmen Rubio; Carlos Simon; Antonio Capalbo
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-03-26       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 7.  The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists.

Authors:  Karen Sermon; Antonio Capalbo; Jacques Cohen; Edith Coonen; Martine De Rycke; Anick De Vos; Joy Delhanty; Francesco Fiorentino; Norbert Gleicher; Georg Griesinger; Jamie Grifo; Alan Handyside; Joyce Harper; Georgia Kokkali; Sebastiaan Mastenbroek; David Meldrum; Marcos Meseguer; Markus Montag; Santiago Munné; Laura Rienzi; Carmen Rubio; Katherine Scott; Richard Scott; Carlos Simon; Jason Swain; Nathan Treff; Filippo Ubaldi; Rita Vassena; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Willem Verpoest; Dagan Wells; Joep Geraedts
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 4.025

8.  Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy Improves Clinical, Gestational, and Neonatal Outcomes in Advanced Maternal Age Patients Without Compromising Cumulative Live-Birth Rate.

Authors:  Laura Sacchi; Elena Albani; Amalia Cesana; Antonella Smeraldi; Valentina Parini; Marco Fabiani; Maurizio Poli; Antonio Capalbo; Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  Decision-making surrounding the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy reveals misunderstanding regarding its benefit.

Authors:  Molly M Quinn; Flor Juarez-Hernandez; Molly Dunn; Richard Jason Okamura; Marcelle I Cedars; Mitchell P Rosen
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 3.412

10.  A comprehensive and universal approach for embryo testing in patients with different genetic disorders.

Authors:  Shuo Zhang; Caixia Lei; Junping Wu; Min Xiao; Jing Zhou; Saijuan Zhu; Jing Fu; Daru Lu; Xiaoxi Sun; Congjian Xu
Journal:  Clin Transl Med       Date:  2021-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.