| Literature DB >> 25420429 |
Judy F C Chow, William S B Yeung1, Estella Y L Lau, Vivian C Y Lee, Ernest H Y Ng, Pak-Chung Ho.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (IVF) have a high level of aneuploidy, which is believed to be a major factor affecting the success of human assisted reproduction treatment. The aneuploidy rate of cleavage stage embryos based on 1-2 biopsied blastomeres has been well-reported, however, the true aneuploidy rate of whole embryos remain unclear because of embryo mosaicism. To study the prevalence of mosaicism in top quality IVF embryos, surplus embryos donated from young patients (aged 28-32) in the assisted reproduction program at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong were used.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25420429 PMCID: PMC4256731 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-12-105
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol ISSN: 1477-7827 Impact factor: 5.211
aCGH result of analysed blastomeres on day 3 embryos
| Embryo | Patient | Age | Day 3 cell number (grade) | Number of cells studied | Genotype (no. of cell) | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | B | 31 | 8(2) | 8 | 46,XX (7); | Diploid - aneuploid mosaic (<38%) |
| 49,XX,+2,+13,+14 (1) | ||||||
| 2 | B | 31 | 8(1) | 8 | 46,XY (8) | Normal |
| 3 | C | 32 | 8(1) | 8 | 46,XX (4) | Diploid - aneuploid mosaic (>38%) |
| 44,XX,-14,-15 (1) | ||||||
| 48,XX,+14,+15 (1) | ||||||
| 46,XX,del(Xq21.2-qter) (1) | ||||||
| No result (1) | ||||||
| 4 | C | 32 | 8(1) | 8 | 43XY,-14, -15,-16 (1) | Aneuploid mosaic |
| 47,XY,+14,+15,-16 (2) | ||||||
| 45,XY,-16 (4) | ||||||
| No result (1) | ||||||
| 5 | C | 32 | 7(4) | 7 | 45,XX,-20 (4) | Aneuploid mosaic |
| 44,XX,-4,-20 (1) | ||||||
| No result (2) | ||||||
| 6 | D | 28 | 8(2) | 8 | 46,XX,del(2pter-p16.3) (6) | Aneuploid mosaic |
| 46,XX,dup(2pter-p16.3) (2) | ||||||
| 7 | D | 28 | 8(3) | 8 | 46,XY (2) | Diploid – aneuploid mosaic (>38%) |
| 47,XY,+16 (5) | ||||||
| Chaotic (1) | ||||||
| 8 | D | 28 | 9(3) | 9 | 46,XX (6) | Diploid – aneuploid mosaic (<38%) |
| 47,XX,+19 (2) | ||||||
| Chaotic (1) | ||||||
| 9 | E | 29 | 8(4) | 9* | 46,XX (1) | Diploid - aneuploid mosaic (>38%) |
| 45,XX,-15 (2) | ||||||
| 47,XX,+15 (1) | ||||||
| 44,XX,-15,-22 (1) | ||||||
| 46,XX,dup(15q11.1-q22.2) (3) | ||||||
| No result (1) | ||||||
| 10 | E | 29 | 7(4) | 7 | 46,XY (2) | Diploid - aneuploid mosaic (>38%) |
| 46,XY,dup(10q21.1-qter) (1) | ||||||
| 46,XY,del10q (1) | ||||||
| 47,XY,+15,del(10q21.3-qter) (1) | ||||||
| 42,XY,-13,-15,-18,-19 (1) | ||||||
| 50,XY,+13,+15,+18,+19 (1) | ||||||
| 11 | E | 29 | 8(2) | 10* | 46,XY (9) | Normal |
| No result (1) | ||||||
| 12 | E | 29 | 7(1) | 7 | 46,XX (4) | Diploid - aneuploid mosaic (<38%) |
| 44,XX,-11,-20 (2) | ||||||
| No result (1) |
*Biopsied blastomeres cleaved before cells were placed in tubes.
Figure 1The reconstructed chromosomal status of blastomeres in embryos 1–6 and 8–9. The reconstruction of cell lineage is based on results of aCGH and microsatellite marker analysis. Abnormal blastomeres are shown in pale grey and those with no result are shown in dark grey. The reconstruction assumes 1) anaphase lagging (AL), non-disjunction (ND), selective endoreduplication (ERD) or chromosome breakage cause the observed chromosomal aberrations; 2) a minimal number of the above events that could explain the chromosomal status of the embryos; and 3) one event per cell division as far as possible.
Figure 2The reconstructed chromosomal status of blastomeres in embryos 10–12 and embryo 7. A) Embryos 10–12. The reconstruction of cell lineage is based on results of aCGH and microsatellite marker analysis. Abnormal blastomeres are shown in pale grey and those with no result are shown in dark grey. The reconstruction assumes 1) anaphase lagging (AL), non-disjunction (ND), selective endoreduplication (ERD) or chromosome breakage cause the observed chromosomal aberrations; 2) a minimal number of the above events that could explain the chromosomal status of the embryos; and 3) one event per cell division as far as possible. B) Embryo 7 with microsatellite marker results at D16S409. The results from cells 4, 5 and 7 are similar to cells 1 and 2, with three alleles detected at locus D16S409. Therefore, the trisomy is the result of meiotic error. Disomic cells 6 and 8 showed a different set of allele pairs and are probably derived from two independent anaphase lagging events.
Prevalence of mitotic errors on day 3 embryos
| Mitotic error | No. of event | Frequency per mitotic error | Frequency per cell division |
|---|---|---|---|
| ERD | 5 | 31.3% | 5.9% |
| ND | 4 | 25% | 4.7% |
| AL | 4 | 25% | 4.7% |
| ND/ERD | 1 | 6.2% | 1.2% |
| ND/AL | 2 | 12.5% | 2.4% |
|
|
| ||
ERD: endoreduplication; ND: non-dysjunction; AL; anaphase lagging.