P Mir1, E Mateu2, A Mercader3, R Herrer4, L Rodrigo2, M Vera2, V Peinado2, M Milán-Sánchez2, I Campos-Galindo2, S García-Herrero2, C Simón2,3, C Rubio2,3. 1. IGENOMIX, Parc Científic de la Universitat de Valéncia, C/Catedrático Agustín Escardino, 9, 46980, Paterna, Valencia, Spain. pere.mir@igenomix.com. 2. IGENOMIX, Parc Científic de la Universitat de Valéncia, C/Catedrático Agustín Escardino, 9, 46980, Paterna, Valencia, Spain. 3. IVI-Valencia, Pza.Policía Local, 3, 46015, Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 4. IVI-Zaragoza, Poetisa María Zambrano, 31, 50018, Zaragoza, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the confirmation rate of day-3 embryo biopsy (blastomere) and trophectoderm biopsy using array-comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) technology. METHODS: A blinded study was conducted to re-analyse 109 embryos previously diagnosed as chromosomally abnormal by array-CGH. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) was performed using array-CGH on day 3 (n = 50) or day 5 (n = 59). Partial chromosome gains or losses were excluded (n=6), and only whole chromosome aneuploidies were considered. Re-analysis of whole blastocysts was carried out following the same array-CGH protocol used for PGS. RESULTS: The PGS result was confirmed in the whole blastocyst in (a) 49/50 (98 %) abnormal embryos after day-3 biopsy and (b) 57/59 (96.6 %) abnormal embryos after trophectoderm biopsy. One embryo (1/50; 2 %) was diagnosed as abnormal, with monosomy 18, on day 3, and software analysis of the whole blastocyst gave a euploid result; however, a mosaic pattern was observed for monosomy 18 in the whole blastocyst. Two trophectoderm biopsy cases (3.4 %) did not have the abnormalities (trisomy 7, and trisomy 1 and 4, respectively) verified in the whole embryo. Concordance rates for both biopsy strategies and for individual chromosomes were evaluated by Fisher's exact test and showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Both types of biopsies showed similar high concordance rates with whole blastocyst results. Therefore, regarding the confirmation rates shown in this work, day-3 embryo biopsies can be representative of the whole embryo and both types of biopsy can be used for clinical analysis in PGS following the described array-CGH protocol.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the confirmation rate of day-3 embryo biopsy (blastomere) and trophectoderm biopsy using array-comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) technology. METHODS: A blinded study was conducted to re-analyse 109 embryos previously diagnosed as chromosomally abnormal by array-CGH. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) was performed using array-CGH on day 3 (n = 50) or day 5 (n = 59). Partial chromosome gains or losses were excluded (n=6), and only whole chromosome aneuploidies were considered. Re-analysis of whole blastocysts was carried out following the same array-CGH protocol used for PGS. RESULTS: The PGS result was confirmed in the whole blastocyst in (a) 49/50 (98 %) abnormal embryos after day-3 biopsy and (b) 57/59 (96.6 %) abnormal embryos after trophectoderm biopsy. One embryo (1/50; 2 %) was diagnosed as abnormal, with monosomy 18, on day 3, and software analysis of the whole blastocyst gave a euploid result; however, a mosaic pattern was observed for monosomy 18 in the whole blastocyst. Two trophectoderm biopsy cases (3.4 %) did not have the abnormalities (trisomy 7, and trisomy 1 and 4, respectively) verified in the whole embryo. Concordance rates for both biopsy strategies and for individual chromosomes were evaluated by Fisher's exact test and showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Both types of biopsies showed similar high concordance rates with whole blastocyst results. Therefore, regarding the confirmation rates shown in this work, day-3 embryo biopsies can be representative of the whole embryo and both types of biopsy can be used for clinical analysis in PGS following the described array-CGH protocol.
Authors: Marie D Werner; Mark P Leondires; William B Schoolcraft; Brad T Miller; Alan B Copperman; Edwin D Robins; Francisco Arredondo; Timothy N Hickman; Jacqueline Gutmann; Wendy J Schillings; Brynn Levy; Deanne Taylor; Nathan R Treff; Richard T Scott Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 7.329
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
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
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
Authors: Veronica Novik; Emily B Moulton; Michael E Sisson; Shagun L Shrestha; Khoa D Tran; Harvey J Stern; Brian D Mariani; Wayne S Stanley Journal: Mol Cytogenet Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 2.009
Authors: Alberto Liñán; Barbara Lawrenz; Ibrahim El Khatib; Asina Bayram; Ana Arnanz; Carmen Rubio; Rupali Chopra; Human M Fatemi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 3.240