Literature DB >> 27577322

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

Navid Esfandiari1, Megan E Bunnell2, Robert F Casper3.   

Abstract

There are newly recognized challenges presented by the occurrence of mosaicism in the context of trophectoderm (TE) biopsy for pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos. Chromosomal mosaicism, known to be significantly higher in IVF embryos than in later prenatal samples, may contribute to errors in diagnosis. In particular, PGS may result in discarding embryos diagnosed as aneuploid but in which the inner cell mass may be completely or mainly euploid, thus representing a false positive diagnosis. Although less likely, some embryos diagnosed as euploid could be mosaic and contain some aneuploid cells, possibly impacting their implantation potential. The ability of current diagnostic techniques to detect mosaicism is limited by the number and location of TE cells in the biopsy and by the methodology used for chromosomal assessment. The clinical consequences of mosaicism are dependent on the chromosome(s) involved, the developmental stage at which the mosaicism evolved, and whether TE biopsy accurately reflects the status of the inner cell mass that forms the fetus. Consequently, in patients with no euploid embryos identified on PGS, it may be appropriate to consider the transfer of diagnosed aneuploid embryos if the TE biopsy result is a non-viable chromosomal monosomy or triploidy that could not result in a birth. It should be acknowledged in consent forms that mosaicism has the potential to impact test results and that its detection may be below the resolution of the genetic tests being used. This concept represents a major shift in current IVF practice and ought to be considered given the data, or lack thereof, of the impact of mosaicism on IVF/PGS outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aneuploidy; Mosaicism; Pre-implantation genetic screening; Trophectoderm biopsy

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27577322      PMCID: PMC5125153          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-016-0797-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.412


  30 in total

1.  Mosaicism: "survival of the fittest" versus "no embryo left behind".

Authors:  Santiago Munné; James Grifo; Dagan Wells
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 7.329

2.  The challenge of embryonic mosaicism in preimplantation genetic screening.

Authors:  Richard T Scott; Daniela Galliano
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 3.  Chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jannie van Echten-Arends; Sebastiaan Mastenbroek; Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz; Johanna C Korevaar; Maas Jan Heineman; Fulco van der Veen; Sjoerd Repping
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 15.610

4.  Incidence and outcome of chromosomal mosaicism found at the time of chorionic villus sampling.

Authors:  J D Goldberg; M M Wohlferd
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 5.  Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Elias M Dahdouh; Jacques Balayla; Juan Antonio García-Velasco
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 3.828

6.  Cytogenetic results from the U.S. Collaborative Study on CVS.

Authors:  D H Ledbetter; J M Zachary; J L Simpson; M S Golbus; E Pergament; L Jackson; M J Mahoney; R J Desnick; J Schulman; K L Copeland
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 3.050

7.  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

8.  Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos.

Authors:  E Fragouli; S Alfarawati; K Spath; D Wells
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 4.025

9.  The accuracy of chromosomal microarray testing for identification of embryonic mosaicism in human blastocysts.

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

10.  Mosaic pregnancy after transfer of a "euploid" blastocyst screened by DNA microarray.

Authors:  Ghassan Haddad; Wenyin He; Jimmy Gill; Craig Witz; Cassie Wang; Khalied Kaskar; Weihua Wang
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 4.234

View more
  7 in total

1.  Mosaicism: throwing the baby out with the bath water?

Authors:  Mario Vega; Sangita Jindal
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  From contemplation to classification of chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos.

Authors:  Igor N Lebedev; Daria I Zhigalina
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Morphokinetic parameters from a time-lapse monitoring system cannot accurately predict the ploidy of embryos.

Authors:  Jingye Zhang; Wenrong Tao; Hui Liu; Guanling Yu; Mei Li; Shuiying Ma; Keliang Wu
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  End-to-end deep learning for recognition of ploidy status using time-lapse videos.

Authors:  Chun-I Lee; Yan-Ru Su; Chien-Hong Chen; T Arthur Chang; Esther En-Shu Kuo; Wei-Lin Zheng; Wen-Ting Hsieh; Chun-Chia Huang; Maw-Sheng Lee; Mark Liu
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-05-22       Impact factor: 3.357

5.  Morphology of inner cell mass: a better predictive biomarker of blastocyst viability.

Authors:  Sargunadevi Sivanantham; Mahalakshmi Saravanan; Nidhi Sharma; Jayashree Shrinivasan; Ramesh Raja
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 3.061

6.  Concordance of various chromosomal errors among different parts of the embryo and the value of re-biopsy in embryos with segmental aneuploidies.

Authors:  Rostislav Navratil; Jakub Horak; Miroslav Hornak; David Kubicek; Maria Balcova; Gabriela Tauwinklova; Pavel Travnik; Katerina Vesela
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 4.025

7.  Diagnostic efficiency of blastocyst culture medium in noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing.

Authors:  Jingbo Chen; Lei Jia; Tingting Li; Yingchun Guo; Shujing He; Zhiqiang Zhang; Wenlong Su; Shihui Zhang; Cong Fang
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2020-09-15
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.